W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > April to June 2013

CfC microdata related follow-up (was Re: {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2013-05-09: actions, microdata CfC, TF reports, other Business)

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 15:41:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEV2_WZDg+FDNvBY35EcSuOS007gF+KSbcB_b7KnUZvh0dypdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com> wrote:
> HTML Weekly Teleconference
> 9 May 2013
> Minutes -> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/09-html-wg-minutes.html
> IRC     -> http://www.w3.org/2013/05/09-html-wg-irc


> [16:08:31] <krisk> TOPIC: Items Closing This Week
> [16:09:19] <krisk> CfC: remove Microdata from HTML 5.0, incorporate Microdata into 5.1
> [16:09:20] <rubys> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0000.html
> [16:10:01] <krisk> tantek: can we discuss the microdata moves to 5.1?
> [16:10:04] <krisk> rubys: yes
> [16:10:39] <krisk> rubys: we are moving all of microdata from the htm5.0 spec and into 5.1
> [16:11:04] <krisk> tantek: I'd like to promote the use of extension specs
> [16:11:29] <krisk> tantek: Maybe this could be done with microdata?
> [16:12:16] <krisk> rubys: if the whatwg makes this a seperate spec then this could be done, though if not we would need a editor to signup to do this work
> [16:13:25] <krisk> rubys: right now we are just focused on 5.0 and don't want to make a rash move to remove it completely
> [16:14:00] <krisk> tantek: Having this in 5.1 seems to go against our modulatity principals
> [16:14:44] <krisk> rubys: tantek can you send a mail to the list to make sure the group has consensus?
> [16:14:48] <krisk> tantek: sure
> [16:15:41] <Zakim> +glenn
> [16:15:56] <krisk> rubys: I don't think you are missing anything other then the ask for a editor to sign up for the work.
> [16:16:56] <krisk> rubys: please bring this up on the list and we can discuss what we want to do beyond removing from HTML5.0
> [16:17:36] <krisk> rubys: any other comments other than bring this up on the list?
> [16:17:40] <glenn> :)
> [16:17:43] <tantek> Thanks Sam and Daniel for the discussion

Summary: I think there is consensus in the group on most of the points
of the CfC[a], but not all. We should move forward with items of
consensus, and change the remaining item accordingly.

[a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0000.html

In particular, these points appear to have consensus:
* remove all references to Microdata from the HTML 5.0 CR draft,
* terminate development of the separate "HTML Microdata" document, and
to publish the results as a W3C Note.

And this one IMO does not have consensus (based on past discussions):
* incorporate Microdata in its entirety into the HTML 5.1 editors draft

Rather, our consensus on this topic is closer to the opposite:
* keep microdata separate from the HTML 5.1 editors draft

And thus I proposed altering the CfC accordingly in the 2013-05-09 telcon.


As the result of a long (painful, permathread) discussion more than a
year (years?) ago, we decided as a group that both RDFa and microdata
should NOT be incorporated into HTML5, but rather developed as
separate specifications.

I don't think it is worth the group's time to reopen this discussion,
based on how much time it took last time, and the likelihood that
opinions on this matter have not changed much if at all.

In addition, since then the group has done an excellent job of
developing a way of creating and evolving extensions specifications as
a path to evolving HTML in a modular way, and we should proactively
embrace and encourage that as we move forward with HTML5.x.

We have seen modularity work in the CSS working group, and have the
opportunity to demonstrate similar success in the HTML working group
with extension specifications.

We also know from past conversations that this (modularization) is a
point of difference with Ian, who has indicated a preference for
keeping WHATWG "HTML" more monolithic, and incorporating living
proposals as needed.

>From this difference in methodologies we can only expect that as we
move forward with HTML5.x based on the WHATWG HTML living
specification, to keep HTML5.x as a solid core, we'll likely need to
break off new pieces of WHATWG HTML living specification into
extension specifications.

Sam pointed out: I don't think you are missing anything other then the
ask for a editor to sign up for the work.

And this is a very good point.

There are two possibilities (for things like microdata being dropped
in the process of merging changes from WHATWG HTML living
specification into HTML 5.x)

1. someone steps forward to edit an extension specification for the
thing being removed
2. someone does not step forward to edit an extension specification
for the thing being removed

If (1), then great, that someone edits (creates if necessary) an
extension specification and keeps it up to date.

If (2), that is, no one steps forward, that can only mean that no one
cares enough about the thing being removed to bother to create an
extension specification for it. If no one cares even that much about
the feature, that's a good signal that perhaps the group shouldn't
worry about it and certainly shouldn't keep it in any kind of a core
specification like HTML5.1.

Of course if someone comes along later and expresses (1), then they
can pick it up and move forward with an extension spec. We can leave
that option open to whoever shows interest and wishes to do the work,
as we do with extension specifications in general.


Received on Saturday, 18 May 2013 22:42:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:50:10 UTC