- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:44:51 +0400
- To: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 23:10:20 +0400, 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 > > 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. Hmm. If we produce an extension spec, it might actually be necessary to have some references in the HTML specification as hooks, but otherwise I am happy with this. > 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). Yes. (The major reason for blending it into an HTML spec is an attempt to make Robin do the editing work, ) > 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. Yep. > 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, Modulo the note above, agreed. > b) to remove the Javascript API from the Microdata spec, and Agreed. > c) to publish the separate "HTML Microdata" document as an extension > spec (iff editorial resources can be found). Agreed. cheers Chaals > 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 > > > > > > > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 09:45:24 UTC