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: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:53:51 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912060653s3911cdeau8d565d4d01848b4b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think this position has consensus even among those who want to
>>> keep
>>> Microdata in the spec. It's simply impracticable.
>> Eh, it makes sense to me, and it's Hixie's position as well.
> If Hixie has a position, I would prefer it he were to state it himself.
> As to whether or not it makes sense or not, I will step forward and say that
> I suspect that I don't fully understand it.  Let's start with the first
> assertion:
>> All good specs which integrate with HTML5 should, ideally, be a part
>> of HTML5.
> To my (perhaps naive) reading, that would mean either that many of the
> following are not good specs:
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/references.html#references
> ... or it would mean that HTML5's current organization is not ideal.
> Care to comment?
> I will also note that a number of specs in that list that have Ian's name on
> them, (example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-mime-sniff).
> - Sam Ruby

I wanted to note that though Ian didn't respond to this question
directly in this thread, he did respond with his opinion of Microdata
in another thread[1].

He said he doesn't like it.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0186.html
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 14:54:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC