- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:36:24 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Quoting Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>: > James Graham wrote: >> Quoting Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>: >> >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/references.html#references >>> >>> ... or it would mean that HTML5's current organization is not ideal. >>> >>> Care to comment? >> >> Whilst I am not Tab, I can say that I find the current organization >> of the spec less easy to use than the previous unsplit document. > > Do you have a concrete proposal to offer? To unsplit the previously split specs? No. I would rather we spent our time on technical matters to do with the content of the spec. Also, the WHATWG provides a complete.html which I can use when I am looking at topics that are inconveniently split across several W3C specs (at least in cases where those specs used to be part of HTML5). >> On the other hand I accept that in some cases other considerations >> might be more important than how usable the spec is for me. In the >> specific case of microdata however many of the arguments presented >> for splitting the spec seem to boil down to it being "unfair" to >> have microdata in the main spec and RDFa outside it. I don't think >> arguments based on perceived fairness are valid technical arguments >> and as such I don't think they should be given much weight. > > I don't see the word "unfair" in Manu's Change Proposal. Nevertheless the concept has come up often in the discussion (if it always in so many words). For example earlier today Julian said "You claimed yourself that microdata being in the spec causes it to get more review. I just want both specs (microdata and RDFa) to compete on equal grounds." [1] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0103.html
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 22:37:19 UTC