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

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:13:32 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912040613w1fe02e02ucaf123f0a8f08ccd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> What we need to do is remove RDFa from this discussion, period. Folks
> who support RDFa have already pursued a course where RDFa is not in
> the HTML5 specification. We no longer need to continue discussing RDFa
> in this regard. If the only way we can discuss Microdata is in its
> relation to RDFa, then I think that tells us that Microdata really has
> nothing going for it on its own.
> This discussion, and these proposals have to do with Microdata. Let's
> focus on Microdata.

While I would like to do so (I agree that it would be much more
productive), I would be remiss in my volunteered role as
Counter-Proposal author if I did so.  Manu's original Change Proposal
mentions RDFa many times: in the summary, in nearly every point of the
Rationale, and in nearly every point of the Impact.  Thus RDFa is a
part of this discussion, at least for me, by definition.

The original Change Proposal does not cite any of the rationales that
you are bringing to the table, Shelley.  If we're willing to drop most
of the rationales in the existing Change Proposal (all of the ones
that deal with Microdata's relationship with or similarity to RDFa),
then I'd be fine with addressing only your points.

Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 14:14:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC