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 17:40:52 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912041540s6d7ccb1dr2d308bc610380cd1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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 4:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>

Cool, we'll stop talking about you-know-what then.

Of your points, there are at least a couple, if I remember correctly
that basically says let's put everything into HTML5. I responded on
that, which triggered a different thread.

I did want to say, though, that I disagree with the idea that let's
put it into HTML5, and if it fails, we can always pull it out in a
later version of HTML.

You mention how the tree like structure of Microdata works well with
JSON. Do you have pointers to applications and libraries that supports
your assertion? In fact, do you have links to any applications and
libraries that support Microdata, other than Philip's proof of
concept?

Shelley
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 23:41:20 UTC

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