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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:20:24 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <7EDA2B80-0AEF-4AE4-8791-855B89ECF263@apple.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

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.


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  


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
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:00 UTC