Re: CfC: remove Microdata from HTML 5.0, remove JS API, continue HTML Microdata as a separate spec

I absolutely support this CfC. Please proceed.
Thanks.

Jonas Jared Jacek
http://jonas.me/


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> Preface:
>
> The purpose of this email is to confirm the consensus that appeared to
> arise out of the 27 June telecon concerning topic of HTML Microdata. The
> relevant portion of the minutes can be found at:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-**html-wg-minutes.html#item05<http://www.w3.org/2013/06/27-html-wg-minutes.html#item05>
>
> Our read is that Charles can now live with the "remove all references to
> Microdata from the HTML 5.0 CR draft" portion of the CfC below, allowing
> that part to proceed.
>
> Our read is that Charles can now live with Microdata as a separate
> document, which represents a change from the original CfC on this topic
> (below).  We still would need work to proceed on establishing exit criteria
> and assessing the document relative to that exit criteria (removing the JS
> portion could be seen as a part of that effort). Unless we get volunteers
> to do that, we should make it clear that the ultimate disposition of this
> document will be as a "tombstone" W3C note.
>
> Finally, as we don't have consensus on what to do with 5.1, we suggest
> that this work be allowed to proceed via editors' discretion for now.
>
> . . .
>
> With that understanding, this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to:
>
> a) to remove all references to Microdata from the HTML 5.0 CR draft,
>
> b) to remove the Javascript API from the Microdata spec, and
>
> c) to publish the separate "HTML Microdata" document as an extension spec
> (iff editorial resources can be found).
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Wednesday, July
> 17th, this resolution will carry.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: CfC: remove Microdata from HTML 5.0, incorporate Microdata into
> 5.1,  publish Microdata doc as a W3C note
> Resent-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 16:28:18 +0000
> Resent-From: public-html-admin@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 12:27:49 -0400
> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> To: public-html-admin@w3.org <public-html-admin@w3.org>
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to remove all references to Microdata
> from the HTML 5.0 CR draft, incorporate Microdata in its entirety into
> the HTML 5.1 editors draft, and to terminate development of the separate
> "HTML Microdata" document, and to publish the results as a W3C Note.
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Thursday,
> May 9th, this resolution will carry.
>
> Note that the current working target for HTML 5.1 is 2016, and that even
> if this resolution passes it is expected that this topic will be
> revisited periodically.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> On 04/24/2013 07:17 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> This was a topic of discussion at the F2F[1]
>>
>> Summary: during a CR advancement call with the Director, we noticed a
>> merge failure.  While that was corrected, Blink chose to remove
>> Microdata API.  Oprah is EOL'ing Presto.  We have other signs of lack of
>> industry momentum for Microdata.
>>
>> Four ways forward were discussed:
>>
>> 1) Remove references to Microdata from the HTML specification, and
>> publish Microdata as a note.
>>
>> 2) Remove Microdata API from the Microdata and HTML specifications, and
>> advance that document to CR.
>>
>> 3) Fold Microdata into HTML 5.1, remove from 5.0, and revisit
>> periodically during the development of 5.1.
>>
>> 4) Remove Microdata API and fold into HTML 5.0.
>>
>> My sense of the sentiment in the room at the time of the discussion was
>> that there was considerable support for option 3, and there were various
>> levels of objections to options 1, 2, and 4.  While some clearly
>> preferred other options, everybody could live with option 3.
>>
>> The purpose of this note is twofold:
>>
>> 1) Solicit other options that those in the room might have missed.
>>
>> 2) Solicit additional objections to any of these options, in particular
>> the third alternative.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/23-**html-wg-minutes.html#item04<http://www.w3.org/2013/04/23-html-wg-minutes.html#item04>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>