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

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:55:20 +0100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091210165520994729.9d27f16b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Ian Hickson, Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:41:03 +0000 (UTC):
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> But Microdata is *already* being designed by only a half or a third of 
>> the group, despite that it is placed inside the same spec. This split 
>> will be/is already reflected in the design.
> Could you point to where microdata's design mirrors the communication 
> structure of the working group?

Why should I need to explain the effect of Conway's law anymore than 
Tab does? Does Conway even explain how? Otherwise, I stick to the quote 
from Wikipedia as the definition of what Conway's laws is: a "valid 
sociological observation". The HTML 5 work has a structure. A strange 
structure: Two groups instead of one. From early on, I said that the 
logical thing would be if WHATwg went into hiatus (at least w.r.t. HTML 
5), and instead recommended that all activity took place in this group. 
That is the _true_ solution to the problem that Conway's law describes. 
As it is, Microdata _especially_ is an example of something that 
happened in WHATwg instead of in this WG. But if you think that _that_ 
neither was or is a problem, then all the less should it be a problem 
for Microdata to be placed in another spec, within the same two-group 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 15:56:07 UTC

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