W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-55 profile by amicable resolution

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:10:38 -0500
Message-ID: <4B86A0FE.109@intertwingly.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 21:11 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> On 02/24/2010 11:35 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>> "There has been talk here (DC-land) of
>>> moving towards more strongly recommending RDFa as a strategy for
>>> HTML-inline metadata. Currently XHTML is the only option there. If
>>> profile is taken away, that might force the migration to happen more
>>> hastily."
>>>  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0576.html
>>>
>>> If there's no community depending on head/@profile in HTML 5, maybe
>>> I'll just let this go.
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Just wanted to clarify a couple of things in this discussion because I
>> don't want us to lose sight of the significant event that just occurred.
>> I think the situation is that there could be two, if not three metadata
>> communities that would love to see this @profile-everywhere proposal
>> succeed in HTML WG.
>>
>> The @profile proposal that Julian, Tantek and I are proposing would
>> achieve several long-standing goals:
>>
>> - Preserve @profile on <HEAD> in HTML5 (for GRDDL and Dublin Core
>>   legacy documents).
>> - Clarify the HTML4.01 definition of @profile with a number of errata
>>   that is already authored. (to ensure there is no mistake on how to
>>   use @profile in HTML5).
>> - Enable the use of @profile on all elements (which does have support
>>   in both the Microformats community /and/ the RDFa community).
>>
>> Tantek outlined how this @profile proposal would lead to a more
>> follow-your-nose-ish version of Microformats, which is a very good
>> thing. The RDFa community has also discussed how this new mechanism
>> could replace (in a very good way) a number of mechanisms that are
>> currently being proposed for RDFa 1.1.
>>
>> All this with very minimal effort, AFAICT. I've committed to editing the
>> HTML WG FPWD of the HTML5 Metadata Profiles spec. Are there concerns of
>> yours that extend past what I've said above?
> 
> Technically, I need to think thru this on-all-elements stuff, but
> my main concern is: closing an issue means "we're done; we don't
> plan to work on it more unless/until somebody brings up information
> that we haven't considered." But you clearly plan to work on it more,
> based on information that you _have_ considered. I can't make
> sense of that.

My main concern is seeing that this moves to resolution.  Nothing more. 
  Nothing less.

One way to resolve this is to decide that email that you wrote 2.5 years 
ago did not gain consensus, note that no changes have been made to it 
which will attract a wider consensus, and furthermore note there is wide 
sentiment(*) that no change to the spec are required.  Closed.  Fini. 
Done.  Motion carries over objections.  Never to be discussed again.

The other way to resolve this is for somebody to actually take an action 
which is associated with a credible schedule which has a plausible 
opportunity to gain consensus.

Which way would you prefer?

- Sam Ruby

(*) Yes, I'm aware of Julian's email:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0870.html

And believe that we need a change proposal.
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 16:11:13 GMT

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