W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:23:06 +0000 (UTC)
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912101914460.19122@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> But Microdata is *already* being designed by only a half or a 
> >>>>>> third of the group, despite that it is placed inside the same 
> >>>>>> spec. This split will be/is already reflected in the design.
> >> 
> >> There is no agreement within this group that we are working closely 
> >> together on Microdata, which is what Conway's mandates in order avoid 
> >> the effect of the law. Conway's law says that under such 
> >> circumstances, things will not end up compatible. I don't think that 
> >> Conway's law says that you will always - immediately - be able to 
> >> pinpoint the incompatibilities.
> > 
> > So in other words, despite you saying that the aforementioned split 
> > "will be/is already reflected in the design", it is in fact not 
> > reflected, and you cannot point to anything that you think will show 
> > such a split?
> 
> I don't bet that I am able to impact your conclusion.

All you would have to do to impact my conclusion is back up your original 
statement.

Instead, it appears to me that you are making wild claims without any 
backing. I think this is highly unprofessional and not appropriate in a 
working group.


> But we have already designed two meta data drafts: HTML+RDFa and 
> microdata. The damage is done.

That is a different argument to the argument you gave above. You still 
haven't explained where you think the split is or will be reflected in the 
design of microdata.


> What we should avoid is that we produce two versions of HTML as well: An 
> ignored version that includes microdata, and a de-facto version that 
> ignores microdata.

Who is proposing multiple versions of HTML?


> >> The current work on Microdata has not had wide support within this 
> >> group. And perhaps even less outside this group. I can't see that 
> >> this could worsen by being moved into another spec. And hence, Tab's 
> >> premise is wrong.
> > 
> > That's a complete non-sequitur. Tab's premise, and indeed Conway's law 
> > in general, has nothing to do with how much support something has. It 
> > has to do with technical design.
> 
> It has to with sociology. Sociology's impact on technical design.

Right. Yet you haven't shown _any_ impact on technical design.


> It seems to me that Conway's law does not care about this or that 
> design. It just observes that people that unite tend to design a united 
> design. While people that do not unite tend to design a de-facto 
> plurality. Support - as a wording for how much one is united around a 
> task - thus impacts the design.

This is not a correct description of Conway's law. Conway suggested that 
people who do not communicate despite working on parts of an overall 
project will create technology that reflects the organisation of the 
communication channels. It has nothing to do with support, and it has no 
way of being applied when there's only one part (HTML including microdata, 
as it is now, is just one part).


> Microdata and HTML 5 _can_ work nicely together. Wikipedia:
> 
> ]] two software modules A and B cannot interface correctly with each 
> other _unless_ the designer and implementer of A communicates with the 
> designer and implementer of B. [[

Are you saying then that I don't communicate with myself? You did, after 
all, say that *as we stand* microdata does or will have a split reflected 
in its technical design! Yet you refuse to back this point up.

At this point I'm seriously wondering if you in fact just made up your 
original point with absolutely no basis in reality.  If this is how you're 
going to act in this working group then you don't really give me any 
reason to believe that you aren't just making up all your points. It 
seriously harms your credibility and wastes everyone else's time.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 19:23:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT