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 19:20:01 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100112192001336049.83b02a2c@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:41:10 -0500:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

>> 4) I think it's somewhat silly to make a last stand over whether the 
>> digit "5" appears in the title. [...]
 
> I have no opinion on the title; my leanings are that the titling 
> could be something that we solicit feedback on -- which is the 
> purpose of publishing Working Drafts.
> 
> [I will note that RDFa is expressedly intended to work with documents 
> with the HTML4 doctype, and my recollection was that that was a key 
> consideration in the titling of that Working Draft]

The second sentence of the HTML+RDFa spec says:

]]The rules defined in this document not only apply to HTML5 documents 
in non-XML and XML mode, but also to HTML4 documents interpreted 
through the HTML5 parsing rules.[[

I interpret this to be nothing more or less than what the HTML5 
language spec itself says: The HTML5 rules will in the future also be 
applied to any text/html document. The HTML+RDFa spec should probably 
also specify that it also applies to XHTML+RDFa documents, when served 
as text/html.

Thus, I don't see that Microdata is the slightest bit more justified in 
using "HTML5" than HTML+RDFa is. They are both equally (un)justified. 
It might be that HTML+RDFa, however, tries to speak to an audience 
which isn't so aware of the fact that the DOCTYPE doesn't matter w.r.t. 
how a text/html document is treated. But then one could also voice 
against the title "HTML5 Microdata" that it doesn't make people aware 
of the fact the Microdata spec also applies to Microdata that could 
appear inside HTML4 documents.
 
>>> The point is that if the reason for excluding Microdata from HTML5 really
>>> is that it isn't mature nor a market success yet, then that should mean
>>> that we can agree that if it becomes mature and a market success, it
>>> should become part of HTML5 again. And if we do agree on that, we should
>>> decide on objective criteria now, so that we don't move the 
>>> goalposts later.
>> 
>> Note that these criteria were applied both in absolute terms and 
>> relative to RDFa. This makes it well nigh impossible to set a 
>> quantitative threshold. My feeling is that if facts on the ground 
>> truly do invalidate the basis of the decision, it will be 
>> reconsidered in good faith.
> 
> What bothers me about this discussion is that it appears to be based 
> on the presumption that "other applicable specifications" as 
> described in section 3.2.1 are somehow second class citizens.

+1
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:20:35 UTC

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