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

Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Microdata as First Public Working Draft and a new HTML5 Working Draft

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:59:31 -0800
Cc: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-id: <04AFF59A-3C2C-4FCD-AA7F-BD8CC2397C3B@apple.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Hi Leif,

On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> I must unfortunately change my support for the publication of a FPWD  
> of
> Microdata to an objection. I have one condition, with two alternative
> solutions, for lifting my objection:
>
> 	EITHER: Solicit with the community behind HTML+RDFa about changing  
> the
> title "HTML+RDFa" to e.g. "HTML5+RDFa", "HTML5 RDFa" or "HTML5 with
> RDFa" (or another name that includes "HTML5"). Then I could accept
> "HTML5 Microdata" as title of the FPWD of Microdata. (Both title and
> subtitle count as "title")
>
> 	OR: Solicit with the community behind Microdata to change the title  
> of
> the FPWD to "HTML+Microdata" or some other name which do not include
> the word "HTML5". (Both title and subtitle count as "title")

I understand where you're coming from, but is this really an FPWD  
blocker? It seems like something that could be handled by filing bugs  
against either or both specs. I note that HTML+RDFa already has a  
bugzilla component. I especially wouldn't want to block publication of  
Microdata on an action by a different editor.

Alternately: Ian, would you be OK with changing the title from "HTML5  
Microdata" to either "HTML+Microdata" or "HTML Microdata" or something  
similar?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 20:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC