- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:03:08 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Oct 16, 2009, at 16:35, Shelley Powers wrote: >> So how can that make you a good judge, even a mediocre judge of what >> works "best" when it comes to metadata? > > I'm not suggesting that Microdata is the best solution in the absolute > sense. I'm just suggesting that it fixes some flaws that alternative > solutions have, so it's better (or less bad). I encourage you to help > the WG make Microdata even better. One point that has not, as far as I can tell, thus far been raised in favour of keeping Microdata in the spec: Hixie has previously reported that the amount of feedback on sections that have been removed has dropped compared to when they were in the main spec (sorry I only remember this from IRC and don't have a reference handy). So keeping microdata in the main spec ensures that it receives the greatest possible amount of input from people interested in HTML5 but unaware of all the history behind what is in different documents. Such people exist for sure because they regularly appear on IRC asking why X is missing from HTML5, where X is a feature that has been spun off into a different spec. Having microdata in the HTML5 spec for Last Call in particular will ensure that the attention and wide review that happens during the this period also focuses attention on microdata, thus helping to improve the technology.
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 16:03:30 UTC