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

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2009, at 20:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> 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;
>>> It may well succeed as a stand-alone thing, but I choose not to 
>>> support splitting it out merely in order to show confidence.
>> To show confidence in it?
> No, I was trying to say that I don't take your bait to play a 
> confidence demonstration game. I'm not into those. I prefer to just 
> chicken out.

I didn't bring up the issue of confidence, you did, Henri. If anyone is 
play a "game" I would say it started with you.

> However, if you are into this sort of confidence demonstrations, why 
> do you campaign for removing Microdata from HTML5 instead of showing 
> your confidence in the success of the solution you think is the better 
> alternative?
I campaign for removing Microdata from the HTML5 specification because 
I've not seen one good reason for it needing to be in the spec, and the 
spec is already overly large and overly complex.

Confidence in the better alternative? I'm assuming by that you mean 
RDFa? You don't see me lobbying to include RDFa in the HTML5 spec, do 
you? I'm quite comfortable with it being a separate spec. I think it's 
better that it is separate, because it can grow, and flourish without 
having to be hampered by the HTML5 timelines. And it doesn't add to an 
overly large, overly complex HTML5 specification.

I'm not sure why you seem to be frustrated with my response, given that 
I was only responding to what you wrote.


Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 11:38:56 UTC