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

(unknown charset) Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Microdata as First Public Working Draft and a new HTML5 Working Draft

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:09:48 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: (unknown charset) "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100112170948148552.7b885b4c@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Ian Hickson, Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:17:01 +0000 (UTC):
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> 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.
> One possible compromise would be to have a WG decision that we publish it 
> independently for now, but established clear objective criteria under 
> which the spec would automatically become a part of the main HTML5 spec 
> again. For example, we could say that if three browsers with more than 1% 
> usage share [...]
> The point is that if the reason for excluding Microdata from HTML5 really 
> is that it isn't mature nor a market success yet, [...]

The decision contains many aspects. Including the competition with 
HTML+RDFa aspect. We would then eventually have to have exactly the 
same rules for HTML+RDFa - that it would automatically become part of 
the HTML5 language if such and such thing happens. I do in fact assume 
that the openings in the WG decision for putting Microdata inside the 
HTML5 language, under such and such conditions, also apply to HTML+RDFa.

> (The argument that Microdata should be taken out of HTML5 because it can 
> be reused in other specifications completely misses the point of Microdata.)

I don't know if the chairs accepted my argument, but Microdata, even it 
would be incorporated in (and thus compatible with) the HTML5  
_language_, isn't even compatible with HTML5 _documents_.

And regardless, the point of the WG decision wasn't, I presume, to save 
the point of Microdata, but to say what kind of meta data mechanism we 
eventually want to incorporate in the HTML5 language.
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:10:21 UTC

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