W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Proposed update for Microdata to RDF specification

From: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 21:14:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CADK2AU1dPwbeaz7c5SGPL0EYmf0+2EUGwU=3mc1cj70s1t9yYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
2014-12-02 11:59 GMT+01:00 <chaals@yandex-team.ru>:

> I agree with Ivan that this is not the right way around. If we have a use
> case, we should look at sensible ways to deal with it, and pseudo-patching
> microdata through some downstream spec doesn't seem right.
>
> Microdata is only a Note, and readily updated if we think it is important.
> Yandex can provide the resources to produce a new version, through the HTML
> WG, if that seems like the thing we would like to do.
>
> Indeed, if people are going to continue to use Microdata seriously,
> perhaps it is worth moving to Recommendation-track. Again, I think that is
> a feasible thing to do, and Yandex will provide the necessary resources if
> there is support for following this path.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>

Although I understand the need for a use case, it is like Gregg said: "unless
it is consumed, there will be no usage".

FWIW, I'll start using itemprop-reverse the moment I know it's being
consumed by the sponsors, but until then there's a 0% chance I'll do so.
And why would anybody else? If one does it won't be understood, so why
bother?

Wouldn't it be easier to get through the HTML WG if the sponsors started
consuming it before it's part of any new spec so that use cases get a
chance to develop?
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 20:15:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:46 UTC