- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:50:04 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
> Incidentally, I feedback from the Working Group is welcome and > encouraged on the topic of whether Microdata should be split out of > the main spec, even in advane of the Change Proposal. Right now it's > not clear to me who in the Working Group is in favor of or against > this change, and why. > > - Maciej Since you've limited this to WG members, I rejoined. I agree with Manu, and I felt his reasoning was sound, and logical. I also can't help thinking that his response was in line with procedures in place in this working group, when the action items were assigned to him. Shelley > > 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 16:50:44 UTC