- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:20:04 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > Yes, that is correct. > > However I do think that having the WG "choose" a mechanism for > embedding metadata is a good thing. We do after all choose mechanisms > for a lot of other things. For example by putting <video> in the spec > we say that we believe that this is a better way to embed video than > by using <object> and flash. By putting SVG in the spec we say that > this is the way to do vector graphics rather than microsofts VML, etc. > > For each problem we solve there are always other ways of solving them. > However we generally pick one and put it in the spec. We don't rely on > external spec and say there are multiple ways of doing something and > you are free to choose any one you want. > ... Well, we might. So, it apperas you're saying we should do Microdata *instead* of RDFa, and thus Microdata should be in the spec. But that's not what we're discussing here. For now, there seems to be lazy consensus for doing RDFa (we have a FPWD), and *potential* lazy consensus for doing Microdata (I don't think we ever measured that), and the only thing that *this* thread is about is whether Microdata should be part of the main spec, or stand-alone. That being said: even if we did have consensus only to do Microdata I would still prefer it to be in a separate spec, for the reasons that have already been stated many times (it's not essential, HTML5 is already to big, it should be able to progress at a different spec, and, it has been changing lately which may indicate it's not ready for LC). BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 19:20:41 UTC