W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:55:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4A71DE81.1070407@intertwingly.net>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I'm concerned whenever I see a group of people voting as a block, be it
>> a group of people that work for a single vendor, are in the same group
>> or task force.
> 
> This is dangerous territory. I represent Creative Commons, which pays
> W3C dues. As of a few days ago, I'm a member of the HTML WG (after
> having been encouraged to join by you). How does anyone get to say that
> my vote doesn't count? Who gets to decide who votes as a block? Does the
> WHATWG vote as a block? Probably, and probably with a lot more sway than
> any other group.

Ultimately, and in order: the chairs, the Interaction Domain Lead, and 
then the Director of the W3C.  I fully understand that it will be messy 
and that there will be escalations.  I simply plan to do everything in 
my power to document decisions to the point where such challenges will 
be unnecessary and, if pursued, not fruitful.

> Manu and I are not employed by the same organization. If he and I don't
> get independent votes, then by that same reasoning, all WHATWG folks
> within the HTML WG should get one vote.
> 
> But let's be a little bit more specific: it was clearly stated that the
> HTML WG functions on a Commit-Then-Review process. Certainly, that's how
> proposals such as micro-data appeared: Ian came up with it on his own,
> and added it to the spec. Since then, he's received support for his
> proposal, but that was *after* it was published on blogs and tweets that
> micro-data was a new addition to the HTML5 spec.

I have stated that the WHATWG (note: WHATWG, not HTML WG) is operating 
under a CTR process.  This is not a prerequisite for how others that may 
wish to draft proposals need operate.  In fact, the input I have 
received to date indicates that the PFWG will be drafting proposals 
based on a more traditional approach of obtaining consensus of those 
that wish to participate.

> Other proposals should get exactly the same treatment.

I intend to do exactly that.  There was a *lot* of discussion before the 
W3C agreed to publish the WHATWG draft as a W3C draft.  If anything, now 
that the path has been paved, the process should be a *lot* less painful 
to new drafts.

> Of course, eventually, some protocol will need to be followed to
> determine the final HTML5. But, in the meantime, different rules cannot
> apply to different proposals.

No question.  As a clear example: I don't believe that there is anybody 
here who can say that Mike's draft is anywhere near as complete or has 
anywhere near the same level of support as Ian's.

I fully understand that the question on RDFa vs microdata isn't quite as 
crisp.  My person perception is that the microdata proposal is more 
completely defined (read that as: less open questions) than the RDFa in 
HTML proposal at this point.  Once that is addressed (and I have every 
expectation that it is a matter of when not if), I personally will 
support the publication of this as a draft product of the working group, 
and will encourage others to do likewise.

> -Ben

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:56:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 July 2009 17:56:04 GMT