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 18:47:09 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100112184709269212.8568f71d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Maciej Stachowiak, Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:02:22 -0800:
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

>> 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 according to the Wikipedia "Usage share of web browsers" pie
>> chart each shipped support for the Microdata API in their consumer release
>> builds, that we would automatically add the feature back in. Or we could
>> find some metric based on large sites publishing data using Microdata, or
>> something else.

> [snipped point 1-3 of the answer] 

Thanks for the clear answer. W.r.t. to the fourth point of your reply:

> 4) I think it's somewhat silly to make a last stand over whether the 
> digit "5" appears in the title. For people who are not fully happy 
> with the split (and that includes myself to some extent), I think 
> most feel that just in the separation, whatever damage is feared has 
> been done. And it's not going to be somehow reversed through clever 
> choice of titles or SotD wording. Please let's just accept this 
> decision and move on instead of dragging it out. What Microdata needs 
> now is implementation, deployment, and advocacy. I will personally be 
> doing what I can to help Microdata succeed on these fronts.

This fourth point speaks better to Ian's other message, where he took 
the stand that it is not the "5" that is important, but that Microdata 
is part of the HTML5 language:

]]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.[[

I assume that we will see that Validator.nu now stops recognizing the 
Microdata features as part of the HTML5 language, and that 
Validator.w3.org does not even start to recognize Microdata as part of 
the HTML5 language. Alternatively, that both validators looks for a way 
to present Microdata as what it now is - an extension of HTML5. The 
last option would be interesting w.r.t. seeing how HTML5's opening for 
extensions could work in practice - the results would be usable for 
HTML+RDFa as well. We are many that are interested in seeing 
first-class extension citizens in HTML5.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:47:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT