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: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:32:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.1001120020500.13493@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >>
> >> Alternately: Ian, would you be OK with changing the title from "HTML5 
> >> Microdata" to either "HTML+Microdata" or "HTML Microdata" or 
> >> something similar?
> >
> > Not really... that would give people the impression that Microdata 
> > wasn't part of HTML5, which I believe it should be.
> As opposed to giving the impression that it's part of HTML?

Having just "HTML" in the name makes it sound like it's an independent 
spec that one can consider part of HTML, or ignore. It makes it sound like 
a candidate for "relevant specification", in HTML5 terms. I believe 
Microdata should be considered an integral part of HTML5. Whether that is 
by having a single specification for HTML5, or having HTML5 split into 
modules with Microdata being one of them, I don't really mind. I would be 
fine with calling the draft "HTML Microdata" or just "Microdata", provided 
that the spec clearly stated it was part of an HTML5 family of 
specifications. What I object to is making Microdata a second-class 
citizen that, e.g., validators can validly claim is not part of HTML5.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:32:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:56 UTC