W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Dropping Microdata entirely

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:45:23 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912070745k71afa472s39ce6b45a0c6095e@mail.gmail.com>
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.
> Addressing your earlier point:
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I had thought about writing a change proposal suggesting we drop
>>> Microdata entirely, but this doesn't seem to fit Issue 76, which has,
>>> unfortunately, tangled RDFa and Microdata together. I want to address
>>> Microdata by itself.
> The Working Group has taken some action to address the RDFa aspect of
> ISSUE-76, namely we have published HTML+RDFa as an independent draft. Manu's
> Change Proposal seeks to address the remainder of the issue by takine
> Microdata out of the main spec. It does not suggest any further changes for
> RDFa, though it does cite RDFa as rationale.
> Effectively, ISSUE-76 now just represents what to do with Microdata. I don't
> believe there is remaining controversy about what to do with RDFa.
>>> I think this is something we should discuss, as has been noted in
>>> other of the discussion threads. Ian also brought it up[1], as have
>>> others in the discussion thread related to Tab's counter-proposal[2].
>>> Should I start a new bug specific to this?
> I think a new bug or issue would be redundant.
> Regards,
> Maciej


Ian is confused about Manu's proposal, and I think you might want to
provide some clarification on this. When he asked me in the other
thread about supporting Manu's proposal, he seemed to believe this
means that if Manu's proposal goes through, a separate specification
for Microdata is automatically created, and proposed for FPWD and LC.

>From Ian's email[1]

"I think you misunderstood Maciej's response.

The net effect of Manu's change proposal would be a spec for Microdata
being proposed for FPWD and LC."

>From what you've said, this isn't true. As you've said, this would
require that further action be taken in order for this to happen.

Can you and/or the other chairs provide clarification?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0195.html
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 15:46:04 UTC

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