W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2010

[Bug 9001] Consistent "Status" sections for Microdata and RDFa

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:31:32 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nh8XU-0008EQ-OD@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9001


Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mjs@apple.com




--- Comment #3 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2010-02-15 21:31:32 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Raising this against HTML5 spec for now as recommended by Sam Ruby
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0411.html).
> 
> The Status sections for RDFa-in-HTML and Microdata should be clear about the
> status in the WG, and their relation with respect to the HTML5 spec.
> 
> I propose to use something similar to what the RDFa editor's draft has:
> 
> "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft does not
> imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C as a whole. In
> particular,
> 
>     * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without using
> RDFa, such as [microdata].
>     * There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms, covered in
> [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating RDFa.
>     * There is concern that continued development of this document belongs in a
> different working group." 
> 
> That being said, other wording would be ok as well, as long as it's consistent
> in both specs.
> 

I think the only aspect of this which is not already included in the draft is
the list of three specific issues. Out of those three issues, the second one is
already tracked, as ISSUE-41. The other two do not have bug reports or issues.
If they are reported to the group, then we can add status markers
automatically, and then remove them once the issues are resolved. The specific
two items I am talking about are:

     * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without using
RDFa, such as [microdata].
     * There is concern that continued development of this document belongs in
a different working group.

Can you please file bugs reflecting those issues? I would not consider this bug
report a valid report of those two issues because (a) it lists more than one
issue and (b) it does not actually request resolution of those two issues, it
requests a change to the status section. I do not see how a change to the
status section would resolve the underlying issues.

I also recommend including the information listed here when filing bugs on
those two additional issues:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#bugzilla-bug

  * A clear statement of a problem with the spec—bug reports are more useful if
they identify concrete problems.
  * Only one issue—please use separate bugs for separate issues.
  * An indication of what section or sections of the spec are affected.
  * At least one suggested way to solve the problem. Optionally, this can
include sample spec text. Listing multiple alternatives is ok, and even a vague
suggestion is fine at this stage.


-- 
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 Monday, 15 February 2010 21:31:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC