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

Re: New round of Working Drafts (was Re: New split-out drafts)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:23:01 -0800
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <5B243FA0-66B3-44CB-9BEB-23489E851637@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

If there are revisions to the front matter of the spec that will increase consensus, then I would encourage those. I feel that the edits so far are sufficient to implement the WG Decision on the Microdata/RDFa issue, but I have no problem with further changes. Some specific comments on Larry's suggestions:

On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> 
> As I noted previously, I don't think W3C HTML WG should commit
> to working on or publishing microdata at this time, without
> resolving the overall issue of extensibility or Microdata
> vs RDFa vs. both.

The Working Group has resolved the issue of Microdata vs RDFa. Our Working Group Decision was that we will not include either in the main spec, or specifically endorse them. Supporters of those technologies are welcome to still pursue them through other avenues, including proposing pulication as Working Drafts in the HTML WG, though of course acceptance as a Working Draft is not guaranteed. I am not sure what else there is to resolve. We explicitly decided not to pick one or the other, but to let them move forward and compete on an even footing.


> 
> To the question of whether to publish the document in W3C
> as a FPWD (given that the document has been widely announced
> as available from WHATWG anywhere) I think at a minimum it
> needs analogous edits as went into the RDFa document:
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
> 
> OLD:
> ==========
> The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any section of the specification, one can usually find many members of the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea that the working group should even spend time discussing the concept of that section.
> 
> ...
> 
> The W3C HTML Working Group is the W3C working group responsible for this specification's progress along the W3C Recommendation track. This specification is the 29 January 2010 Editor's Draft.
> 
> ==================
> NEW:
> 
> The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the majority of members of the W3C HTML working group or the W3C as a whole. In particular,
> 
> * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without using microdata, such as [RDFa]
> * There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms, covered in [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating microdata.
> * There is concern that continued development of this document within W3C would belong in a different working group chartered to focus on the topic.

In general, I have no problem with these wording changes, in that none of them are false or misleading. But I do have three minor comments here:

1) "does not imply endorsement by the majority of members of the W3C HTML working group" ==> Strictly speaking, it does not imply endorsement by *any* of the members of the W3C HTML Working Group, but saying "the majority of" implies that a majority disapproves. I do not think that is established. Nor is majority endorsement a relevant standard for W3C decisions. Thus, I think both HTML Microdata and HTML+RDFa should simply say: "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C as a whole."

2) I am not sure listing the specific nature of some objections is overall helpful. Problems with the spec should be tracked as bugs, issues, or other mechanisms outside the spec (such as requests to the W3C Team to charter new Working Groups) rather than in the SotD. Listing three specific areas of objection seems to imply that those objections are specifically endorsed by the HTML WG, which is not the case.

3) I especially do not think the SotD is the appropriate venue for requesting a new Working Group.


> 
> ...
> 
> This specification was developed in the WHATWG, and is currently being published also by the W3C HTML Working Group to further discussions within W3C.

That is not factually accurate. The specification has been jointly developed by the WHATWG and the W3C HTML WG. We have seen considerable technical feedback here and even published it as part of another Working Draft previously. This sentence implies that we're publishing something that was wholly developed externally and is now being newly submitted, which is not the case.

I think likewise the corresponding sentence in HTML+RDFa should cite joint development with the RDFa Task Force rather than claiming external development. There has been much technical feedback in the HTML WG on that draft as well.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 30 January 2010 02:23:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:00 GMT