W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML Microdata to Candidate Recommendation

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:57:03 +0000
Message-ID: <50B2861F.50505@webr3.org>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:25:38 +0400, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 
>> Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:15:26 +0400, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>> The fact that RDFa already does what Microdata does has
>>>>> been elaborated upon before:
>>>  Yes. For what it is worth, I personally think RDFa is generally a 
>>> technically better solution. But as Marcos says, "so what"? Our job 
>>> at W3C is to make standards for the technology the market decides to 
>>> use.
>>
>> Standards, plural? not a standard way to do things, singular?
> 
> If the market wants more than one way, that's what we should be 
> offering. I think we all agree that it is *better* to have an agreed 
> single way. Of *course* we all agree that it is better to have the 
> technologically best specification as the standard.

I'd be interested to see the data / info that says the market wants more 
than one offering here.

Do you, does yandex?

> ... It took some years to get constructive dialogue on why 
> people want one, the other, or both, and how they best fit together in 
> the world. The sort of constructive dialogue that is the special product 
> of W3C, which I think is unparalleled in its ability to provide this 
> value to the Web.

I agree, however the only real discussion I've seen around Microdata and 
RDFa is the discussion which led up to the TAG guidance:
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jun/0038.html

On the back of that I was aware of it being taken seriously by some 
parties, and RDFa Lite being put forward. I'm unaware of any such effort 
or dialogue around Microdata though.

I would love a pointer to this dialogue, anything which says "why I can 
use Microdata but I can't use RDFa (Lite)", any conversation, anything 
which suggests that it's a good idea to publish Microdata as a REC - in 
addition to RDFa (Lite) - other than it simply existing.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 20:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC