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

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