- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:15:07 -0500
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
>> Is that your defense of Microdata? Leave it in, because we can just pull in >> a later version of HTML? I can't believe that, you must have more extensive >> reasons for your interest. Could you provide those? >> > > I don't care whether Microdata or RDFa end up in the spec, not in the > spec, or ditched entirely. I do think that it would be more > productive for the HTMLWG to resolve it one way or the other, however. > That way it can move on to discussing other issues where discussion > might actually prove fruitful. > > I will take exception to this. This item was specifically an action item assigned to Manu Sporny, from the HTML WG chairs: have a discussion about moving Microdata to a separate specification. I'll ask for the W3C chair(s) to comment on your request to move on to something more "fruitful". >> Winner? The only winners here should be the people who end up with whatever >> comes out of this working group. Our effort shouldn't be a contest. It >> should be an example of cooperation. >> > > That's a nice ideal, but sometimes it doesn't work, and some form of > arbitration is necessary. We reached that point a long time ago > regarding RDFa vs. Microdata. The issue has already been arbitrated > in the WHATWG by the editor, in favor of Microdata. In the W3C > further recourse is available to the ones who lost in the WHATWG, so > take it and let's get this over with for good. If you can work out > something that satisfies everyone, good luck, but I think there's > little hope of that at this point. > > We're actually following through on this group's new resolution policies. This discussion is not improper. >> In the mean time we're in the middle of a discussion. Do you have specific >> reasons why you personally need and want Microdata, and why you feel that >> Microdata _must_ be a part of the HTML5 specification? >> > > No. I never said I think any of those things, and I don't. > Personally, I don't see why it matters either way what spec anything > is in. Microdata is specced by the HTMLWG, RDFa is specced by the > HTMLWG. Anyone can feel free to use either. Splitting Microdata out > to a separate spec now (as opposed to three years from now if it's > unsuccessful) isn't important enough to be worth arguing over. Which > is all the more reason to just resolve it one way or another. If the > RDFa advocates would drop this, or the Microdata advocates agree to > it, without needing to invoke a formal decision-making procedure, then > all the better. > > If it isn't important enough to argue over, then you are, in effect, giving your view in a semi-lazy consensus way. > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Shelley Powers > <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > >> Let them both have their chance in the marketplace. If both survive, fine. >> If only one survives, then perhaps at some future time, it can be >> incorporated into HTML5. Or not. >> > > You could apply the same argument to any feature with a dubious > future. There are a lot of things in HTML5 that don't have any > implementations yet, and not all of those will get enough > implementations to justify staying in the spec. That's why HTML5 is a > Working Draft. It's not likely to become a Recommendation for at > least ten years, so if Microdata is a failure, it will be possible to > split it out any time before then. No rush; the HTML Working Group > has more important things to think about, that actually affect what > user agents have to implement in the near future. > > Then again, I don't know why you're in this discussion. You have no interest in the topic. Fine. Cool. Some of us do, though. Shelley
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 19:15:45 UTC