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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:44:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4B782887.9020600@intertwingly.net>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
> 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.

+1

> * 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?

The current mechanism uses annotation such as:

   HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [semantics-0 extensibility]

Some ideas:

1) treat anchors as unique across all documents published by this 
working group (or, alternatively, treat matching ids as an indication 
that an issue that applies to any applies to all).

2) Have annotations for each spec (e.g. RDFA-SPEC-SECTIONS)

My two cents: #1 above is "the simplest thing that could possibly work", 
and would tend to be resilient in the face of document splits and 
merges.  It could be augmented by conventions (ids starting with "rdfa" 
are unlikely to appear in the microdata spec).

Furthermore, for all I know, this might even be working now, and the 
only reason that no issue markers appear in the microdata spec is that 
none of the sections indicated in issues today actually occur in the 
microdata spec.

> 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.

+1

My understanding is that Ian has already agreed to this mechanism. 
Heck, he implemented much of it.

> -- manu

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 16:45:28 GMT

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