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 13:45:17 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912041145k46f53c7fk5bb32fdaafa0f982@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 1:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It looks to me like Tab's Change Proposal to keep Microdata has six major
> points in the Rationale section, only one of which cites RDFa. It is fair
> game, of course, to question the strength of that point or of any of the
> five other points.
>

OK dokee, if people only want to talk about microdata in the context
of RDFa, I won't protest. I think it really undermines the credibility
of Microdata, but that's just one's person's opinion.


> (For comparison, Manu's Change Proposal to split Microdata has seven points,
> six of which cite RDFa.)
>

Yup, you're right.

> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>


Shelley
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 19:45:50 UTC

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