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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:12:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912101605280.19122@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 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 
> structure.

That didn't answer the question.

When talking about microdata, you said that the split that Conway's Law 
predicts "will be/is already reflected in the design". Could you point to 
where microdata's design mirrors the communication structure of the 
working group?

Tab was saying that there is no such split, but that splitting it out 
would lead to such a split. I understand how that could happen -- if 
different parts of a technology are designed by independent and separate 
groups not closely working together, then Conway's Law applies. However, 
you said that it either had already happened, or would happen, presumably 
even without such a split. I'm just asking for you to point to where this 
split is, to determine what you consider to be such a split.

Presumably it should be easy enough to point to such a split, since if 
there wasn't such a split, you wouldn't have suggested there was.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 16:13:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:55 UTC