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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:35:10 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912040635i74d233cbofb142a5127c6d64a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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 8:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> ~TJ

The original issue ended up being split into multiple actions, and
deliverables, probably it was too encompassing. The issue of RDFa in
HTML was decided by publishing RDFa-in-HTML in a separate draft. There
was no counter-proposal in regards to this split, and there was no
real quibble, other than some folks had some suggestions and edits.

This counter-proposal was based on a proposal[1] that specifically was
focused on whether RDFa and Microdata should be included within the
HTML5 specification. The RDFa folks removed RDFa from the equation by
publishing RDFa-in-HTML separately. And no one objected to this
happening, so I think you would need chair approval to open up the
discussion whether to re-include RDFa in the HTML5 specification.

So that's the RDFa part. This leaves only the second part to the
change proposal: whether Microdata should be contained within the
HTML5 or, itself, split out into a separate spec.

We need to focus, rather than bring up past decisions and actions. We
need to focus if we want to have any chance of closing these issues.
The only open item right now with Issue 76, as far as I know, is what
to do with Microdata. Chairs, am I incorrect in this?


[1]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0773.html
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 14:35:50 UTC

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