W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:41:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD76CEE.9080900@burningbird.net>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

>
> Which, hey, is how HTML5 started.  A few years ago the ones in charge
> of HTML's future were all in favor of things like XML namespaces and
> RDF.  Some other people thought they could do a better job, gave it a
> shot, and ended up winning.  So it goes.  If RDFa is clearly better
> than Microdata, the way HTML5 was clearly better than XHTML2, then the
> worst case for you is that Microdata gets ignored and taken out of the
> spec eventually when there aren't enough implementations.  If being in
> the spec is all that's needed to let Microdata win, I guess it can't
> have been too much worse to start with.
>   

I just realized that your argument is in support of Manu's original 
statement. He wrote [1]

>
> Here are the basic premises and reasoning behind the two drafts listed
> above:
>
> * Either RDFa or Microdata (or both) may fail in the marketplace.
> * It is more productive for philosophically divergent communities
> (RDFa/Microdata) within a larger community (HTML WG) to have their own
> work products during a period of active debate. Those complete work
> products should only be presented to the larger group for consensus when
> they reach maturity.
> * Both HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata should be allowed to become mature
> drafts before consensus on inclusion or dismissal is discussed.
> * Having the RDFa and Microdata specification separate from the HTML5
> specification will allow those technologies to evolve independently from
> HTML5 (after REC).
>
> Possible conclusions:
>
> * If either RDFa or Microdata fail in the marketplace in the long-term,
> it would be advisable to allow either (or both) to fail without having a
> negative impact on the HTML5 spec proper.
> * The HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata drafts should be allowed to mature
> until Last Call before one or both are selected for inclusion into
> HTML5. A productive way to enable that maturation process is to separate
> the concerns into separate documents.
> * If we don't separate the documents into different work products, the
> alternative is to argue over which work product to allow, which does not
> lead to the production of a specification outlining each philosophy.
> Worse, it may prevent a particular work product from being developed to
> maturity before it is struck down.
>
You basically said the exact same thing, though in different words.

Let them both have their chance in the marketplace. If both survive, 
fine. If only one survives, then perhaps at some future time, it can be 
incorporated into HTML5. Or not.

Whether people like RDFa or not, Microdata or not, I can't help thinking 
that, logically, they (you) must see that this is the best approach to 
take.

Shelley

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0420.html
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 18:42:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC