- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:17:52 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
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