- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:20:24 -0700
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
If you'd like to propose that Microdata should be removed from the main spec, the best way to do that is to write a Change Proposal for ISSUE-76. Would you like to volunteer to do that? Here's the info that needs to be included. http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal I would suggest that the Change Proposal should just be for removing Microdata from the main spec. If the Change Proposal passes, and there is interest in publishing Microdata as a standalone draft, then it would probably be better for that work to be done by a Microdata advocate. Regards, Maciej On Oct 14, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > (bcc: RDFa Developer Community) > > ISSUE-76 : http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76 > ACTION-139: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/139 > > HTML+RDFa is scheduled to be published as a HTML WG Working Draft > tomorrow. While that addresses most of the concerns for defining > RDFa in > HTML for now, two work products remain to be discussed. Those are: > > 1. The stand-alone HTML5+Microdata draft: > > http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/microdata.html > > 2. Ensuring that all normative references to RDFa and Microdata are > removed from the HTML5 specification: > > http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/html5-nosemantics.html > > Note that the two drafts above are 45 days old and will have to be > updated before publishing an HTML+Microdata FPWD or an HTML5- > NoSemantics > FPWD. > > Here are the basic premises and reasoning behind the two drafts listed > above: > > * Either RDFa or Microdata (or both) may fail in the marketplace. > * It is more productive for philosophically divergent communities > (RDFa/Microdata) within a larger community (HTML WG) to have their own > work products during a period of active debate. Those complete work > products should only be presented to the larger group for consensus > when > they reach maturity. > * Both HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata should be allowed to become mature > drafts before consensus on inclusion or dismissal is discussed. > * Having the RDFa and Microdata specification separate from the HTML5 > specification will allow those technologies to evolve independently > from > HTML5 (after REC). > > Possible conclusions: > > * If either RDFa or Microdata fail in the marketplace in the long- > term, > it would be advisable to allow either (or both) to fail without > having a > negative impact on the HTML5 spec proper. > * The HTML+RDFa and HTML+Microdata drafts should be allowed to mature > until Last Call before one or both are selected for inclusion into > HTML5. A productive way to enable that maturation process is to > separate > the concerns into separate documents. > * If we don't separate the documents into different work products, the > alternative is to argue over which work product to allow, which does > not > lead to the production of a specification outlining each philosophy. > Worse, it may prevent a particular work product from being developed > to > maturity before it is struck down. > > It is for these reasons that the two specifications listed above > (after > they have been updated and revised) should be published as FPWDs. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture > http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/ >
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 16:37:28 UTC