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

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

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:01:41 -0500
Message-ID: <4B63A115.4040506@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 01/29/2010 09:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 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."

I'll make this change tomorrow.

> 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.

I think it's helpful to those that read the document to understand
high-level issues associated with the Status of the Document. The list
does not have to be exhaustive, but many readers will never look at the
bug tracker. Thus, it is good to summarize the big picture issues in the
Status of the Document.

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

My reading on that point is not that it is a request for a new Working
Group, but rather a statement of concern about the proper venue for the
work.

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

I'll make this change tomorrow, as well.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Monarch - Next Generation REST Web Services
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/12/14/monarch/
Received on Saturday, 30 January 2010 03:02:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC