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 14:15:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD774BB.9070207@burningbird.net>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org

>> Is that your defense of Microdata? Leave it in, because we can just pull in
>> a later version of HTML? I can't believe that, you must have more extensive
>> reasons for your interest. Could you provide those?
>>     
>
> I don't care whether Microdata or RDFa end up in the spec, not in the
> spec, or ditched entirely.  I do think that it would be more
> productive for the HTMLWG to resolve it one way or the other, however.
>  That way it can move on to discussing other issues where discussion
> might actually prove fruitful.
>
>   

I will take exception to this. This item was specifically an action item 
assigned to Manu Sporny, from the HTML WG chairs: have a discussion 
about moving Microdata to a separate specification.

I'll ask for the W3C chair(s) to comment on your request to move on to 
something more "fruitful".

>> Winner? The only winners here should be the people who end up with whatever
>> comes out of this working group.  Our effort shouldn't be a contest. It
>> should be an example of cooperation.
>>     
>
> That's a nice ideal, but sometimes it doesn't work, and some form of
> arbitration is necessary.  We reached that point a long time ago
> regarding RDFa vs. Microdata.  The issue has already been arbitrated
> in the WHATWG by the editor, in favor of Microdata.  In the W3C
> further recourse is available to the ones who lost in the WHATWG, so
> take it and let's get this over with for good.  If you can work out
> something that satisfies everyone, good luck, but I think there's
> little hope of that at this point.
>
>   

We're actually following through on this group's new resolution 
policies. This discussion is not improper.

>> In the mean time we're in the middle of a discussion. Do you have specific
>> reasons why you personally need and want Microdata, and why you feel that
>> Microdata _must_ be a part of the HTML5 specification?
>>     
>
> No.  I never said I think any of those things, and I don't.
> Personally, I don't see why it matters either way what spec anything
> is in.  Microdata is specced by the HTMLWG, RDFa is specced by the
> HTMLWG.  Anyone can feel free to use either.  Splitting Microdata out
> to a separate spec now (as opposed to three years from now if it's
> unsuccessful) isn't important enough to be worth arguing over.  Which
> is all the more reason to just resolve it one way or another.  If the
> RDFa advocates would drop this, or the Microdata advocates agree to
> it, without needing to invoke a formal decision-making procedure, then
> all the better.
>
>   

If it isn't important enough to argue over, then you are, in effect, 
giving your view in a semi-lazy consensus way.

> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Shelley Powers
> <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> You could apply the same argument to any feature with a dubious
> future.  There are a lot of things in HTML5 that don't have any
> implementations yet, and not all of those will get enough
> implementations to justify staying in the spec.  That's why HTML5 is a
> Working Draft.  It's not likely to become a Recommendation for at
> least ten years, so if Microdata is a failure, it will be possible to
> split it out any time before then.  No rush; the HTML Working Group
> has more important things to think about, that actually affect what
> user agents have to implement in the near future.
>
>   

Then again,  I don't know why you're in this discussion. You have no 
interest in the topic. Fine. Cool. Some of us do, though.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 19:15:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT