W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:37:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4B73352F.9080500@intertwingly.net>
To: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Krzysztof Maczyński wrote:
>> HTML Microdata: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
> I oppose this publication. A new endeavour in the area of extensible
> annotaions and embedding of semantics is not within a direct
> interpretation of our charter. W3C already works on RDFa which is an
> established technology satisfying Microdata's use cases. The
> advantages Microdata seeks to provide over RDFa 1.0 should inform
> (and they actually do, despite Microdata proponents' lack of good
> will to cooperate) RDFa 1.1. We should not support the interests of
> parties which want to fragment the market, prevent RDFa from
> achieving more success and torment the whole field of Semantic Web.

I do a far amount of work at the Apache Software Foundation, and if that 
foundation was run this way, there would be no Tomcat.

More relevant to a W3C context, if such a policy were followed, there 
would not need to be both an XSLT and CSS.

> Microdata was created as a step towards this goal by people wishing
> RDFa's use cases not to be satisfied or at least be so in a maligned
> and quirky way.

Here I need to cry foul.  Please cease attributing motivation to people 
that you may disagree with and then condemning them based on motives 
that you have imputed upon them.

Please reconsider this objection, and if you wish to pursue it, please 
restate it in much less objectionable terms.

>> HTML Canvas 2D Context: http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
> There is an alternative draft by Doug Schepers and Eliot Graff. It
> seems to me that no conclusion has reached on the issue of
> integrating the two. Therefore I don't support this publication at
> this time but may well do so in the future (there's no heartbeat
> requirement). Our charter doesn't call for it and I want to ensure
> broad consensus and participation, for which the HTML WG is in my
> opinion too limited. I know the decision from before I joined the WG
> that this API was in scope. But there are other groups in the W3C
> which are better suited for this work. I suggest asking the WGs in
> the Graphics Activity, Style Activity and the XSL-FO Subgroup if
> they'd like to develop it with us in a task force.

Neither Doug nor Eliot have put their draft forward for consideration, 
and I strongly discourage anybody from putting them on the spot until 
they are ready to do so.  As such, I will ask you to either voluntarily 
withdraw this objection or personally put a plan in place which 
definitively resolves this issue.

As you indicated the scope issue has already been resolved, and 
escalated up to and including the Director level.  If this is something 
you wish to pursue, I would like to suggest that you voluntarily 
decouple this from a publishing question and pursue this at the 
appropriate level.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 22:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT