- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:13:15 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: > >> I had forgotten about the TAG request to remove Microdata[1]. This bug >> did get tied to Issue 76. > > The TAG's request was to remove Microdata from the main spec. We confirmed > that they have no objection to publishing it separately. > >> >> If it is the proper issue, then I will be writing a change proposal >> specifically about removing Microdata. It won't be a counter-proposal. >> Chairs, is this acceptable, even though, technically, I may be beyond >> deadlines? >> >> I can have the proposal finished before next week's teleconference. > > Technically, a Change Proposal that didn't recommend publishing Microdata as > a separate spec in addition to removing it from the main spec would not > prevent us from ever publishing it. Nor does Manu's entirely require us to > publish it. To publish a new draft, it would have to meet the FPWD > requirements (three independent contributors and passes an FPWD resolution). > The way to opposte that would be to object to the FPWD resolution when it > comes up. I don't think a Change Proposal can really require the Working > Group to decide one way or another on a future FPWD resolution. > > Given this, if you have additional rationale to back up removing Microdata > from the main spec, I suggest you take a shot at working with Manu to > incorporate it into a single Change Proposal before making a separate one. > If you find you can't work with him, then a separate Change Proposal would > be fine. However, the Chairs would like to move on this issue soon. While we > have not decided on a timeline yet, we probably won't grant significant time > for additional alternate proposals. The issue came up during a discussion with Ian in another thread. But if discarding Microdata and splitting it into another spec are equivalent from an HTML5 perspective, then that should address Ian's comments. > Regards, > Maciej > Shelley
Received on Saturday, 5 December 2009 21:13:50 UTC