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 16:33:39 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912041433i6324fd7drc97b130758747ff5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

That doesn't… I don't… You just…

…

WHAT?!?

Are you *reading* what other people say before sending your responses?
 I have *one* point, among *six*, that talk about RDFa, and that's not
even talking about it directly, but rather addressing the argument
expressed in Manu's change proposal that it's good to have multiple
approaches doing the same thing so that each can grow on its own.  The
rest of the direct responses to points of Manu's I was able to make
without referencing RDFa at all.

Maciej is pointing out that my Change Proposal says *very little*
about RDFa.  I *am* talking about Microdata's merits on its own.
Manu's proposal explicitly referenced RDFa heavily and used it in
multiple rationales; any talk about RDFa is a direct reaction to
something stated in Manu's draft.

I would *love* to stop talking about RDFa.  But it's a heavy factor in
Manu's change proposal, and it keeps being brought up by people who
want Microdata out of the spec.  If you want to stop talking about
RDFa, *then stop talking about RDFa*.  This solution should have been
obvious from the start.

However, even if you do stop talking about RDFa, the fact that it
appears so much in Manu's change proposal means that it will still be
brought up.  If you would like to eliminate this, convince Manu to
modify his change proposal so that it doesn't talk about RDFa at all.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 22:34:11 UTC

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