- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:08:11 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Sam Ruby wrote: > ... >> I still disagree on that. Microdata was put into the spec based on a >> unilaterally decision of the editor. The WG failed to get it removed >> before publishing a WD, true, but that's not quite the same thing as >> having made a conscious decision to include it. > > I understand that perspective. Looking just this feature in isolation > -- while it was authored by a single person, it still is a fact that it > attracted both interest and contributions from others. It would have > met my personal criteria for publishing in as an independent draft, as > clearly RDFa obviously did. > ... Yes. But that test never was made, because the person proposing Microdata happened to have the editorial power to just put it in, while others didn't have that power. This causes a perception of the process not being fair. I agree with most if your other points, except for: > My advice to everybody is spend more time pushing *for* features and aspects that you like, and only spend time pushing *against* features or aspects that you can't live with. I think that if we want to reach a point where the spec actually is reviewable we should concentrate on taking those things out that are either controversial, truly optional, or both. Right now we're spending a lot of time arguing about controversial feature sets, while we really should be spending it reviewing the important parts. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 13:15:30 UTC