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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:18:01 -0700
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <C2A22F40-88A7-4095-8ACB-C14DB0BB1E14@apple.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 19:07 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I also agree with Sam that Microdata is in the same boat, by virtue  
>> of
>> being published as a Working Draft.
> Has the HTML WG really made the same commitment to Microdata?
> Microdata was a *feature* of HTML in the recent HTML5 WD, but was not
> published as a WD in its own right. If publishing a WD commits us to
> retaining every feature of it, then I guess <dialog> will be making a
> comeback?

To be clear, publishing a Working Draft does not commit us to  
retaining every feature. Publishing a feature as a Working Draft by  
itself does not commit us to "retaining" the feature either, if by  
that you mean taking it to REC. A separate WD does create the extra  
Process requirement that if we abandon it, we have to publish a WG  
Note, but there's no requirement on what has to be in such a Note  
exactly. A particular feature of a draft with many features can be  
dropped without publishing a Note.

> Splitting out Microdata as a separate WD would actually secure its  
> place
> in the HTML5 WG's work, committing us to taking it to Rec or Note  
> status
> (eventually). Until that happens (and based on my, admittedly limited
> understanding of the W3C process) the HTML WG has made no commitment  
> to
> keep Microdata.

I happen to personally agree with the proposal to split Microdata into  
a separate spec (speaking for myself only and not as co-Chair or  
Apple's rep). But publishing it as a separate Working Draft will not  
give it any higher status or degree of commitment from the WG than it  
enjoys today (other than the procedural requirement about what happens  
if we abandon it).

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 09:18:37 UTC

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