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

Roy T. Fielding, Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:20:52 -0800:
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> The current work on Microdata has not had wide support within this 
>>> group. And perhaps even less outside this group. I can't see that this 
>>> could worsen by being moved into another spec. And hence, Tab's premise 
>>> is wrong.
>> 
>> That's a complete non-sequitur. Tab's premise, and indeed Conway's law in 
>> general, has nothing to do with how much support something has. It has to 
>> do with technical design.
  [...]
> The only
> rational way to apply it to HTML5 is to note that the current
> specification matches the design of a single person within the
> echo chamber of a self-selected group of browser vendors, [...]

And as a result of that communication structure's focus on HTML, 
microdata interfaces well with pure HTML. But not with _HTML 5 
documents_. Which can contain MathML and SVG: [1]

]]
Reusing [microdata] in, for example, SVG would not be possible
[[

> In other words, Conway's law is more an argument for splitting
> Microdata into a separate specification, since then its design
> structure can mirror the small subset of folks that actually
> care about its design, and the rest of HTML5 can be focused
> on by the wider group.

There is indeed no risk, as far are Conway's law is concerned, in 
having a document A and a document B. Only if the HTML 5 document is 
considered "the communication channel", would it make sense that a 
split _in itself_ could be a danger. [2]

[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/KeepMicrodata

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Dec/0039

-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 14:18:35 UTC