W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 7542] Remove Section 5. Microdata

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:46:08 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Mq4ky-00072T-Gy@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7542





--- Comment #7 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2009-09-22 12:46:08 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > I will continue to keep this open until Issue 76 has a successful resolution,
> > because one of the HTML WG co-chairs has stated that _this_ is the way to bring
> > about change, not create alternate text. 
> 
> Ok. Reassigning to Mike for escalation.
> 

Fine

> 
> > Ian, I listed specific people who provided use cases. Did you ask any of them
> > if Microdata answered their specific concerns and requirements?
> 
> Manu Sporny, Julian Reschke, and Ben Adida have all said that Microdata doesn't
> match their requirements, but I have my doubts that anything that wasn't RDFa
> would match their requirements. I do not believe I specifically asked the other
> people you listed (I don't recognise all of their names). Most of the people I
> requested feedback from directly were specifically not people involved with
> RDFa or Microformats previously, because I didn't want the input I received to
> be biased by familiarity with previous solutions (especially since the whole
> point of the effort was to address the use cases in ways that didn't end up
> having the same flaws of those other efforts).
>

If you didn't get feedback from anyone who provided requirements and use cases,
you must realize that your effort was contrary to the interests of the larger
community. 

You let your own unreasonable biases adversely impact on the HTML5
specification.

As we have seen, Manu Sporny and others are willing to incorporate RDFa and
HTML into a separate but complimentary specification, rather than bloat the
already oversized specification. They thought of the greater community, and are
working to a compromise. I imagine no one would have a problem if you did the
same with Microdata. 

> > Listing one site, one site, and giving it as justification for Microdata is
> > frankly, ludicrous. 
> 
> I do not feel comfortable listing the names of the people whom I consulted
> personally. However, I do not feel the need to make any claims to authority to
> justify the microdata proposal; I feel it is quite capable of justifying its
> own existence on purely technical merits.
> 

Anyone not willing to stand up and give their name and their opinion in public
is irrelevant.  One could just as well reference the Good Fairy and the Mad
Hatter for the results to be as valid.

So, I will take your answer as no, no one who gave requirements or use cases
has responded positively to Microdata. 



-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 12:46:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:01 UTC