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

Re: Does anyone like microdata?

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:55:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4A493866.8060200@burningbird.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Shelley Powers<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>> For the record, besides the on-list testimonials, I've received some
>>> off-list feedback indicating there are some others who like microdata but
>>> would rather not say so directly on the list.
>>> Overall, it seems like microdata has an audience of positive advocates, even
>>> though various people have reasons to dislike it.
> [snip]
>> So I'm sorry, but your search for feedback was extremely limited. I
>> would suggest broadening it, or refraining from making any conclusions
>> from the few feedbacks you have received.
> The only conclusion that I see Maciej making is that microdata "has an
> audience of positive advocates". It does not say anything about the
> size of this audience, and does not say anything regarding if there is
> consensus that it should be kept in.
> It further does not say anything about if the audience is happy with
> microdata as is, or if further technical discussions are needed.
>> As for people who do not respond on the list, their opinions are
>> irrelevant. Either people publicly commit their likes, or they go
>> uncounted. That is fair and appropriate, do you not agree?
> Why would people that say offlist that they are interested not count?
> Sure, it would be hard to take their technical feedback into account
> if we can't actually see their technical feedback, so their arguments
> are severely weakened.
> Or are you accusing Maciej or not being truthful?

No, I'm saying that people who are not willing to commit to the 
specification, and voice their commitment, are people who are not part 
of the discussion.

People mention in this group fairly frequently that decisions here are 
based on scientific methodology. Well, hearsay is not a scientific 
technique. It can't be measured, it can't be debated, it can't be more 
minutely discussed.

>> Otherwise,
>> I've heard from thousands who feel positively ill at the sight of the
>> microdata section. No really, they just don't want to commit online.
> Have you really? If so that would be good feedback to get. If you are
> just making stuff up I'm starting to understand why you have such
> trust issues with other people on this list.

I was being facetious. Typically, understanding such requires 
imagination. I will be more careful about using the more esoteric 
communication techniques in this group.

> In general, I think you really need to stop your accusing tone on the
> HTML list. It was good to see you in a recent email say that you had
> been more critical of Ian than of his technical decisions. I had hoped
> that that would have led to the conclusion to stop attacking people
> personally and instead keep discussions on the HTML list to a
> technical nature.

I beg your pardon. As far as I can see, most of the personal attacks 
today have been directed at me. I questioned Ian's judgment and biases, 
because he is still the only author of HTML 5--his decisions are shaping 
the specification. I have no intention of not continuing to be critical 
of Ian's decisions, just more careful about word use. There are trigger 
words, and I know better than to use them. Sometimes, though, I get 

> This is the work environment for a lot of people and you are causing
> this environment to be very unpleasant at times.

I beg your pardon?

> Feel free to not agree with the technical decisions that people are
> making. Do counter those with technical arguments of your own.

I beg your pardon? Is this not what I've been doing?
> And feel free to disagree with the procedures that the working group
> is currently using. Do discuss this in *separate* threads, and direct
> them towards the *chairs* since they are the ones in charge of these
> matters.

I don't believe my issues with Maciej's statement, or Ian's decisions 
are specific to the chairs. I don't need to run to daddy to intercede on 
my behalf. I am more capable of holding my own in a debate, and in a 

> And feel free to have trust issues with people. But keep those *off the list*.

And who has made the list unpleasant today?  I would say your email was 
a deliberate attempt to silence me and my criticism. That is something I 
would never do, and have never done -- so who is really stepping over 
the boundaries today?

I will continue as I began. If you wish to take this up with the chairs 
to have me barred from the group, be prepared to have this discussed 
more fully, not only in this group, but outside.

Now, can we return to discussion issues specific to the HTML 5 
specification, and the decisions about the material included within it?


> / Jonas
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 21:56:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:49 UTC