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

Re: Request for editing guidance

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:51:27 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim0FWLQR5aWZe3PtjwV8m46F6c8NHQ1oiKAsQgs@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 09.06.2010 19:45, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Ian has many times laid out technical arguments for why microdata was
>> developed in place of RDFa, I'd be really surprised if you had managed
>> to miss them all? In fact, it seems like the developers of RDFa has
>
> I didn't miss them; I just do not agree.

Then clearly it's not just a "mee-too" spec.

>> agreed with at least some of the arguments as the new version of RDFa
>> is aiming to solve the same problem, in an equally incompatible way
>> (at least that was the case last I looked).
>
> That may be true (and I'm also nervous about RDFa making too many changes).
> If you're referring to CURIEs in content: I don't think they are nearly as
> big a problem as some people make them. What *is* a problem is confusion
> about CURIEs vs URIs in the same place, such as @rel (and I have been
> complaining about that for a long time).

Last I heard there was also some talk about changing the default data
type, though maybe that is no longer the case?

It seems to me then that if we rename "microdata" to "RDFa 2.0" then
it will reach the same level of "controversial"ness as RDFa 1.1 has.

>> Also, since when is competing with another spec bad or disallowed? If
>
> It isn't.
>
>> we shouldn't compete with other specs then XML should not have been
>> developed as it competes with SGML, XHTML should not have been
>> developed as it competes with HTML. XSLT should not have been
>> developed as it competes with DSSSL. XSL:FO should not have been
>> developed as it competes with CSS. RDFa should not have been developed
>> as it competes with HTML4 (rel, class, profile etc).
>
> Competing with another spec is fine on equal ground. That was the core
> controversy that we had back when Microdata was silently added to the HTML
> spec.

Well, so by this argument rel and class should be removed and put in
its own spec. It's clearly not competing on equal ground with RDFa. We
might even want to put the ".foo" selector from CSS selectors in its
own spec as to put class on an equal ground with RDFa.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 18:52:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:09 GMT