Re: HTML5-warnings - motivations

Shelley Powers wrote:
> It's been entered as Issue 76

Thanks Shelley, I was going to ask that either you or Julian enter the
issue, so it's great that you took the initiative to do so. There are
many, many e-mails concerning the ongoing RDFa in HTML5 discussion. We
will probably want to include those in the tracker as well:

The date range we may want to search is from August of 2008 to now.

Sam, I'm not going to make a formal request for the removal of the
Microdata section at the present time as that is the purview of the RDFa
TF and our Chair, Ben Adida. I would lobby against removing Microdata
and inserting RDFa in its place.

I think that there are several ways to proceed:
1. Remove both Microdata and RDFa to separate specifications, but
   published via the HTML WG. The forthcoming RDFa IG would
   draft the HTML+RDFa specification. WHAT WG would draft the
   Microdata specification. Both could be included via reference
   into the HTML5 spec (if necessary).

If that fails:
2. Include both Microdata and RDFa in the HTML 5 specification.

If that fails:
3. Vote on which one makes it into the draft and which one should be

I prefer these options in this order: 1, 2, 3. I would hate to have to
vote on #3 because I think both RDFa and Microdata should be given every
opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits.

However, those decisions cannot be made now. For now, I'd just like to
note that #microdata, among some of the other HTML5 features, are of
concern and publish HTML5-warnings with whatever removals are requested
via the poll.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny) (twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 18:40:34 UTC