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

Re: Change Proposals and FPWD Resolutions

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:25:46 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270912090725p6ced24f7lea9fa434d05afb38@mail.gmail.com>
To: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-html@w3.org
2009/12/9 Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>:
> Manu,
>
>> Draft 3 of the ISSUE-76 Change Proposal for removing Microdata from the
>> HTML5 spec now clearly specifies that an HTML+Microdata FPWD should be
>> automatically published if the Change Proposal is adopted
> I'd like to ask you to reconsider this. Without it the Change Proposal uses convincing arguments and may appeal to people who want Microdata published separately as well as those who believe it's better not to publish a public spec at this time. I'm in the latter camp and there are certainly more of us.
> You wrote that it would avoid the burden of having a separate FPWD resolution. I think it's not a significant difficulty to deal with, especially given that it would allow us to focus on the issue of Microdata in the HTML5 spec now and then possibly on its suitability to become an FPWD instead of mixing the two (which is, as I already argued, undesirable, because some people agreeing on one disagree on the other).
> Microdata is a technology in a peculiar situation of having been created and supported only by people who don't actually want this domain of use cases to be addressed. The community which has interest in semantic annotations of Web documents clearly isn't satisfied with Microdata (especially its applicability to HTML only, I believe) and prefers the approach of RDFa. So it seems that currently the only raison d'être for Microdata is to create a roadblock for RDFa. Microdata should only be pursued when (if, actually) its proponents show willingness to cooperate with the Semantic Web community and to satisfy their expectations and preferences. (In my opinion it would lead to merging Microdata with its distinct advantages into a future version of RDFa.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof Maczyński
>
>

I agree that combing two separate actions into one change proposal is
a mistake. I'm disappointed that the action of removing Microdata from
the HTML5 spec have now been tied into automatically publishing
Microdata as FPWD. I'm keeping in mind, though, that just because a
document is published as FPWD doesn't mean it progresses. If no one
steps forward to support the draft, it will eventually end up as a
note.

I hope, though,  that we don't get into the habit of littering this
group's steps with the bodies of numerous FPWD that end up becoming
notes. Our task should be to remove confusion, not add to it. To
simplify, not clutter.

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 15:26:25 UTC

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