W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2010

Re: The next HTML+RDFa Heartbeat

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:32:49 -0400
Message-ID: <4BB2B451.7000806@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/30/2010 04:52 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>> I'd like to point again to Tim's message
>> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0871.html>):
>>
>>> It is important (a) that the design be modular; (b) that the
>>> specifications be kept modular and (c) that the communities of expertise of
>>> the respective fields (graphics and data) be involved in the design process.
>>
>> Did we make any progress on (c)?
> 
> People from both the RDFa and Microformats communities have provided
> lots of feedback on Microdata since its initial inclusion in the HTML5
> spec, which has resulted in a significantly better design. So yes, I
> think we've got (c) covered.

(RDFa co-chair hat off)

Unfortunately, I don't think that community cross-pollination has been
as widespread as we would all like to believe that it has been. I take
exception to Ed's statement above.

Having spoken with a number of people in the Microformats and Linked
Data community, I know more than a few that refuse to take any part
reviewing/using the Microdata specification. Some of this has to do with
the way it came about, some of them feel that the editor isn't listening
to them, some of it has to do with fundamental design decisions made in
Microdata, and some of it is for techno-religious reasons.

The same can be said for RDFa - to each coin, two sides.

Personally, I know that I've stopped thinking about Microdata for the
most part because there is a path forward for RDFa in HTML5. I'd rather
spend the very limited time for standards work working on something I
believe in... I'm sure most of the Microdata folks feel the same way.

So, while that may be an understandable coping mechanism, it's not
entirely healthy for the Web.

I would suggest that this Working Group makes it a point to have the
RDFa WG review the Microdata specification when it goes to LC.
Similarly, this WG should make it a point to ensure that WHATWG reviews
the RDFa Core 1.1, HTML+RDFa, and RDFa DOM API specification when it
goes to LC.

I can't imagine that the reviews are going to be overflowing with
praise, from either group, but it's the proper due diligence that should
be expected from any W3C Working Group.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 02:33:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT