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 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC