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: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:32:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4AD8AE25.8020000@burningbird.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2009, at 16:35, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> How can you say it addresses your concerns when you don't care for 
>> metadata,
> I do care about metadata sometimes. It isn't my primary interest and 
> I'm often skeptical of the cost/benefit ratio of metadata. I should 
> point out that I don't in any way object to solving the problems that 
> Microdata addresses, even though I'm personally more interested in 
> solving other problems in the sphere of HTML.
> As for how can I say whether my concerns are addressed:
> An example of my concern about RDFa is that in uses syntax that in 
> Gecko, WebKit and Presto parses to a different DOM Level 2 
> representation in text/html and application/xhtml+xml. I can assess 
> whether a proposal has this property even if the proposal is solving a 
> problem I wouldn't personally pursue solving as a priority. This 
> touches on my activities as a parser developer.
> An example of my concern about Microformats is that they lack a 
> precise processing model. Again, I can assess whether a proposal has a 
> precise processing model even if the proposal is solving a problem I 
> wouldn't personally pursue solving as a priority. This touches on my 
> activities as a validator developer.

Henri, the point is, this issue isn't about whether RDFa or Microformats 
deserve to live: they will live, they will continue to be used, their 
use is too entrenched to be upset by anything that happens in HTML5.

You keep explaining things in terms of how Microdata is not RDFa, or is 
not microformats. I keep asking you, why do you think Microdata should 
be in HTML5, rather than its own document. If the only purpose, the only 
purpose that you see for Microdata is to kill or otherwise incapacitate 
Microformats or RDFa, then it's already a failure: it will do neither. 
As such, then of course we should remove it from HTML5.

You say you're not worried about size of HTML5, but many of us are. 
Stuffing everything we can into HTML5 isn't serving the community at 
large. The community at large is going to have an easier time with HTML5 
if it is pared down to the minimum of what it needs to be.

A minimum HTML5 does not need to have the Microdata section.

>> and it seems like you compare it to some form of evangelism?
> I used the word "evangelism" in this sense:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_evangelist
>> So how can that make you a good judge, even a mediocre judge of what 
>> works "best" when it comes to metadata?
> I'm not suggesting that Microdata is the best solution in the absolute 
> sense. I'm just suggesting that it fixes some flaws that alternative 
> solutions have, so it's better (or less bad). I encourage you to help 
> the WG make Microdata even better.
>> If anything, you, like everyone else who have responded to this 
>> discussion have given a good reason to remove Microdata from the 
>> HTML5 specification, into its own document. If it is the superior 
>> approach you deem it to be, it will succeed;
> It may well succeed as a stand-alone thing, but I choose not to 
> support splitting it out merely in order to show confidence.
To show confidence in it? If you want to show confidence in it, it seems 
to me, you would support it as a stand alone document, because you would 
be confident that it would survive as a stand alone specification. By 
wanting it included in the HTML5 spec, it seems to me you're really 
showing you don't have confidence that it could survive stand alone.

Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 17:32:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:53 UTC