- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:09:24 +0200
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
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 > ... At this point I'd like to remind everybody involved in this discussion about why we're having it. (1) Our charter (<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html>) states: "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents. Whether this occurs through the extensibility mechanism of XML, whether it is also allowed in the classic HTML serialization, and whether it uses the DTD and Schema modularization techniques, is for the HTML WG to determine." (2) We've been discussing whether RDFa should be included into HTML5 for a long time, and there was certainly no consensus for doing so. (3) Furthermore, for a long time there was some resistance against working on this area at all, mainly from those who are now supporting microdata. (4) In spring, the author of HTML5 unilaterally decided to address the use cases in a different way, creating the microdata format. There was no WG consensus to do so, not even lazy. Actually, the addition of microdata has been controversial from the day it was added. (5) Summarizing, the *only* reason why microdata is part of HTML5 right now is that the author had the power to make it so. What we're now discussing isn't whether to "drop" microdata, or which one is "better", but only whether it should compete with RDFa on equal footing. Manu has volunteered not only to author the RDFa-in-HTML spec (stand-alone, thankfully), but also to show how microdata *could* be moved into a separate spec. Thanks for that, Manu. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 09:10:16 UTC