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 <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:34:45 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910190534r492ad58fv2f1a68d0d14dadc5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2009, at 22:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> For now, there seems to be lazy consensus for doing RDFa (we have a FPWD),
>
> If this is how FPWD is interpreted even within the WG, maybe the idea of
> taking on multiple FPWDs some of which may get abandoned as tombstone Notes
> isn't working out.

Your response was to Julian, but I want to jump in on this one:

What makes you think that this will be abandoned at some future time?
Manu didn't do all that work for a giggle. And there is a significant
amount of support for the document.

But again, a reminder: this topic thread has nothing to do with the
RDFa document. It has to do with keeping Microdata in the HTML5 spec,
or splitting it out.

>
> At least I thought that when Sam encouraged a plurality of competing drafts
> the idea was to gauge which ones the WG ends up actually 'doing' some time
> after FPWD.
>

It's true that if Microdata is split into a separate document, it may
not do more than end up as a note. But I'm assuming if there's enough
interest in Microdata,  it should survive to be released. I have no
intention of fighting its release. I'm a big believer that the world
is full of wondrous variety, and not everyone has the same needs I
have. I believe in being flexible.

> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
>


Shelley

>
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:35:13 GMT

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