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

Re: Proposal to publish HTML5 and vocab specs

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:59:27 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910280559x34c840f2sed93ec6da08b275d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Let's be clear.  What Julian was stating was that we had affirmed RDFa in
>>> HTML.  I simply stated that the level of affirmation (i.e., Working Draft)
>>> was precisely the same for RDFa in HTML as it was for Microdata.  It still
>>> is possible that neither of them will make it to CR.  Or both of them.  Or
>>> just one.
>>> ...
>>
>> 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.
>
> Let's look again at your original statement:
>
>> The point I'm trying to make is that this WG made a decision to work
>> on RDFa, and publish it as FPWD, but, unless I'm missing something,
>> did *not* do that for Microdata (which was suddenly dropped into the
>> spec, and which has been controversial since).
>
> In both the RDFa and Microdata cases, a subset of members of the group
> decided to work on that particular feature.
>
> In both cases, the working group decided to include that feature in a
> published working draft -- and in neither case was there any guarantee that
> the feature will remain intact to Last Call let alone to Candidate
> Recommendation stage.
>
> In both cases, the feature is controversial, and has been since day one of
> each feature.
>
> I will grant you that the creation of Microdata was sudden.  Here there
> clearly are different editorial styles at work.  Ian's approach is to
> publish early and often -- seeking broad input and revising quickly. From my
> perspective, it took seemingly forever to get the RDFa folks to publish
> anything, at which time quite a number of issues were identified that are
> now being actively worked.  Different styles, with strengths and weaknesses
> to both.  And, I will confess, I have a preference for Ian's earlier and
> broader participation approach.
>

Ian's style is to publish impulsively, first, at which point in time,
it takes a monumental effort on other people's part to even get any
consideration of altering or removing what he added, first, without
_any_ discussion with this group.

Look at the recent suggestion that those who support Microdata
actually write a counter-proposal. The Microdata "supporters" were
stunned, and confused that they were asked to actually provide reasons
for the decision to include Microdata. Ian's belief is he could
include it, and he'd never have to justify it.

And let's not even go there when it comes to accessibility. I'm still
astonished at the difficulty the accessibility folks have had.

You say that the RDFa folks was the "bad" way, but I'll tell you
something: when RDFa in HTML hits the street, the issues will have
been resolved, and the interested community will support the effort.
The group is taking the time _now_ to get it right. And they're also
willing to listen to concerns, and resolve problems _now_.

What's happening in this group is the problems that should get
resolved now, are being continually shoved out to some future time. If
not during the editing of the First Draft, then during the Last Call.
If not then, then as formal objections along the way.

> We've asked for rationale to be pulled together and consolidated as to why
> RDFa should be in a separate spec, and we got it.  We've asked for rationale
> to be pulled together and consolidated and have yet to get it.  Given that I
> still expect that either this will be done, or that Microdata will
> voluntarily be split out, I would rather not speculate any further than I
> already have[1] on possible futures.
>
> I believe that the treatment that each feature has received is more alike
> than you seem willing to concede.  I'll even go further and say that the key
> reason that RDFa in HTML wasn't published in, say, April was that it hadn't
> been written yet.
>
> 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.
>

And that's what we're doing. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.


>> BR, Julian
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0981.html
>

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 13:27:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT