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

Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:34:58 -0700
Message-ID: <4A731D32.50508@adida.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I *was* talking about the HTML WG, and so were you when this discussion
>> was initially brought up:
>>
>> "For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
> 
> I mispoke.

Ok, but the facts on the ground speak for themselves: micro-data was
included in the spec without any attempt at consensus, and now it's
about to go out as a working draft, again without any attempt at consensus.

> Ian incorporated micro-data into an editors draft.  Manu incorporated
> RDFa into an editors draft.  So far, we are at parity.

No, we are not at parity. When people come to the HTML WG page

  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

they find *the* editors' draft

  http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html

which includes microdata, which was added without even so much as a
poll. When this happens, folks in the greater Web community
understandably assume that "micro-data has been added to the HTML5
spec". Now it's a manufactured fact on the ground, and the debate shifts
to how to tweak the spec rather than whether it even belongs in the spec.

> Based on the current state of the documents, I have recommended that we
> proceed at this point in time with Ian's "branch" merely for the
> purposes of meeting the heartbeat requirement.  But that is only a
> recommendation, others are welcome to make other recommendations at this
> time.  Such an approach is without-prejudice, specifically, the lack of
> inclusion of RDFa in this particular draft does not indicate taking a
> position against later inclusion; similarly the inclusion of micro-data
> does not indicate a statement that such will be included in the Last Call.

That may be so for those highly versed in W3C process, but to the public
it's a very clear message that this was discussed and agreed upon. It
wasn't. There are competing viewpoints which are not getting aired.

> I say that, but I recognize that people outside of this group may not be
> fully aware of the subtleties of this position and despite our explicit
> claims to the contrary may be confused, and welcome counter proposals to
> address this: perhaps via stronger and more explicit disclaimers, or by
> including or excluding specific sections.

I propose that we either:

1) publish competing specs for HTML5, including Manu's draft, or

2) if we have only one spec, remove the micro-data section. (I suspect
other folks will want to remove other sections, which is understandable.)

I *much* prefer (1). I have no desire to remove micro-data if people
want to use it. In addition, I think Manu's approach to segmenting the
HTML5 specification is *extremely* important to the viability of the
spec long term, whether or not RDFa is ever included.

But, if (1) is opposed, then it is only fair to go with (2), so that
facts on the ground are not manufactured and then used to railroad
segments of the spec into recommendations.

-Ben
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 16:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 July 2009 16:35:40 GMT