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 13:13:20 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912041113o289e79e2wdc33f13206fbd1dc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I won't speak for others in the group, but I will say that what the chairs
>> are focused on is on concrete proposals.  For issue 76, we have two at the
>> moment.  If the owners of those proposals wish to revise those proposals
>> based on input, great.  If others wish to bring forward new proposals,
>> great.
>>
>> I can say that discussions concerning reactions to what one person thinks
>> another person may have in mind and may have said outside the context of a
>> specific proposal are examples of things that I an *NOT* focused on at the
>> moment.
>
> Indeed, discussion should be focused on the contents of actual proposals.
> With respect to Shelley's original question, I will note that both submitted
> Change Proposals cite RDFa extensively in their rationale. It is fair game
> to discuss and question the rationale for either or both change proposals.
> And that may entail references to RDFa, even though changing what we are
> doing with RDFa is not suggested in either proposal.
>

That's fair.

I just would really like to see some argument about Microdata that
wasn't related to RDFa. I would like to actually see some evidence of
healthy community support for it, like we see with RDFa and
Microformats.

If the only reason it exists is because folks don't like RDFa, I think
the important point to remember is that the existence, or not, of
Microdata will not generally influence what happens with RDFa.

>>
>> With respect to issue 76, at the present time, I don't see unanimity in
>> the working group, as such, I expect that we will need to follow the
>> following process:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent
>
> This does seem likely.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej

Shelley
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 19:13:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC