Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-10-08: AIs, Task Forces, TPAC/ECMA, Decision Policy

Sam Ruby wrote:
>      b. ISSUE-76/ACTION-139 (Microdata/RDFa) - Manu Sporny
>         My understanding is that RDFa is happy as a separate spec,
>         please let me know if I got that wrong?

Your understanding is correct. The RDFa community is happy having it as
a separate spec, AFAICT. The decision to refer to RDFa normatively (or
not) from the HTML5 spec has still not been made. That discussion will
come after HTML+RDFa FPWD is published (more on that below).

>         The remaining
>         issue is splitting out Microdata, for which the current
>         status is RESOLVED WONTFIX

I have prepared a draft for that issue and it's available here:

The draft is out of date at this point and will need to be re-synced
with Ian's copy of the draft before it is published. It's provided as a
discussion point and demonstrates that it is possible to separate
Microdata from the HTML5 spec. I assert that it makes more sense to do
this since RDFa is external to the HTML5 spec and if we're going to have
two mechanisms for semantics going forward, it would be easier to move
them forward as separate documents. It certainly makes editing that
particular part of HTML5 easier.

>         Potentially a good candidate for testing out the draft
>         escalation process?

Sure - we don't mind being the guinea pig... or canary... or whatever
metaphorical animal we're going to subject to the unspeakable acts
undertaken by members of this WG. =P

>      c. ISSUE-76/ACTION-147 (Microdata/RDFa) - Paul Cotton
>         I expect a status update from Paul.

Paul's probably not going to have a status update since I've been out of
town focusing on customer needs and unable to make the necessary
PubRules updates to the HTML+RDFa spec for publishing. I will attempt to
make those changes tonight and have a new document by tomorrow morning
before the call.

>      e. ISSUE-55/ACTION-144 (head-profile) - Manu Sporny
>         I saw a draft-1, but discussion appears to have tapered off.
>         Will there be a second draft?  One month deadline?

The feedback so far has been a mix of supportive comments and
unsupportive comments that could be summarized as "why do we need this
now?" or "if you don't break backwards compatibility, you don't need
@version". I don't think there has been feedback to the effect of "this
will break the web".

There will be a second head-profile draft, a 30 day deadline is fine.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 17:07:42 UTC