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

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

This all sidesteps what I said in my email.  The current Issue 76
Change Proposal from Manu explicitly refers to RDFa and uses it in its
arguments.  Thus any discussion around counter-proposals implicitly
needs to discuss RDFa as well.  I do not feel it would be appropriate
to ignore large swathes of Manu's original Change Proposal without his
consent; he may feel it is very worthwhile to pursue some of those
argument-lines.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 14:42:24 UTC