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

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

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:23:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4B782399.3040006@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02/14/2010 07:39 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> We very clearly decided last month that Microdata and RDFa+in-HTML
>> should have the same status. The Status section should reflect that.
>> I'm not married to the exact wording, but I'd like to see consistency
>> in both drafts.
> 
> Manu chose to use that wording after hearing people's feedback on the
> status section. I don't think treating both drafts equally means we
> should order Ian to change his status wording to be the same as what
> Manu used, nor do I think we should order Manu to use the same wording
> that Ian used. 

We are having a multi-day discussion over a change to HTML+RDFa that
took 15 minutes to make and publish. Larry's suggested changes to
HTML+RDFa and Microdata are reasonable and accurate. This really
shouldn't be as big of an issue as it has become.

That said, I think that Maciej's suggestion to place issue markers into
the Microdata and HTML+RDFa drafts based on Bugzilla bugs is a perfectly
reasonable alternative to the edits that have already been made to
HTML+RDFa, but not to Microdata:

* It integrates well with the issue escalation process setup for the
  HTML WG.
* We're already adding issue markers for the main HTML5 spec, so this
  decision should not be controversial.
* It should address Larry's concerns and should prevent a FO.
* Assigning issues to SotD section shouldn't be controversial as it
  directly reflects items in the bug tracker, which the W3C Team can
  alter if needed.
* The spec generation toolchain already supports doing this for the
  most part, minor changes may be needed to differentiate between
  bugs logged against Microdata, HTML5 or HTML+RDFa drafts on sections
  with the same name. Geoffrey, thoughts?

If Ian agrees to this mechanism, I would also be fine with implementing
it. Hopefully it would put an end to this process question, publish the
FPWDs, and move us forward with the technical work.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 16:24:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC