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

This is coming from someone not well versed in RDFa, microformats, or
microdata. I am simply an (X)HTML author upgrading to HTML5. From my
perspective, and speaking for the potentially millions of other simple
(X)HTML authors wishing to upgrade, it would seem a good idea to keep the
HTML5 spec as pure as possible. Just as local storage and geolocation are
new aspects of HTML5 but have their own specs, could these issues that we
are discussing not be the same. That way someone wishing to learn HTML5
would be able to read the spec and not be overloaded by info that was over
their head. And when the author wishes or is ready to understand these more
complex issues they are merely a click of a link away in another spec.

I just wanted to speak for the people out there who don't totally understand
RDFa, microdata, or microformats but who still care about the direction of
the spec.

Please forgive any misunderstandings or errors. Thanks for all of the hard
work HTML Working Group.
--
Carlos Cardona
CardonaDesigns.com
JAH Love Eternal

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 16:39, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>>> The HTML+RDFa folks have voluntarily put this specification into a
>>> separate document, so it doesn't increase the size of the HTML5 spec--that
>>> people don't have to wade through the spec, just to find out how to use the
>>> basic HTML markup.
>>>
>>
>> The size of the HTML5 spec doesn't bother me.
>>
>>  Henri, I don't remember you ever having an interest in metadata. In fact,
>>> I've always had the impression from you that you think it's over rated.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. Working on metadata at the National Archives Service (of Finland)
>> made me a non-believer.
>>
>> Subsequently elsewhere, I was assigned to a death march metadata project,
>> which was like a caricature of overmodeling the domain without asking if the
>> benefit of the meticulous metadata was ever going to justify the cost of
>> developing the system let alone getting people to input the metadata. I can
>> see the same pattern in Semantic Web evangelism from time to time.
>>
>>  Forget RDFa for the moment: what is it about Microdata that's important
>>> to you, personally?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can see that there's demand for addressing the use cases that Microdata
>> and RDFa address even though those use cases aren't my primary interest. I
>> care about what's good for the Web and how solutions impact software that I
>> work on. When I see that the use cases are going to be addressed even if
>> addressing them isn't what I'd personally focus on, I prefer them to be
>> addressed in a way that's better for the Web and doesn't have an adverse
>> impact on the software I work on. Microdata addresses the concerns I've
>> raised about Microformats and RDFa over the years.
>>
>>  How can you say it addresses your concerns when you don't care for
> metadata, and it seems like you compare it to some form of evangelism?
>
> Your response is a negative, it's an against, a counter, not anything
> positive, or interested, or involved in any way.
>
> So how can that make you a good judge, even a mediocre judge of what works
> "best" when it comes to metadata? You've picked up some technical aspects
> you don't like, and you've decided anything that would eliminate these has
> to be good. Yet the people that created these ideas and concepts have worked
> for years, not against something, but _for_ something. They did it because
> they are positive about the concept, interested, and involved. And capable,
> as difficult as seems to be to accept for too many in this working group.
>
> If anything, you, like everyone else who have responded to this discussion
> have given a good reason to remove Microdata from the HTML5 specification,
> into its own document. If it is the superior approach you deem it to be, it
> will succeed; if it is not, then the HTML5 document will not be burdened
> with the dead body of a mini-specification that does _not_ meet the needs of
> the people truly interested in metadata.
>
> Shelley
>
>