- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:17:19 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> ... >> A decision[1] was made to publish a WD including Microdata. More than >> ample time was given for everybody to object, and in fact a number of >> objections were raised and dealt with. >> >> While no formal assessment of consensus or final decisions on packaging >> (same spec, split specs) were made, as far as the content goes, the WG made >> decisions to publish both Microdata and RDFa as WDs. >> ... > > The inclusion of microdata into HTML5 has been controversial since the day > it appeared in the spec. > > The related tracker issue was opened on August 10: > <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/76> > > The first WG draft that included Microdata was, as far as I recall, > published on August 25 (<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090825/>). > > Furthermore, publishing WDs was sold as "being needed for meeting the > heartbeat requirement". > > So, for the record: I believe that Microdata does not belong into HTML5, and > I believe I have said so since the moment it was included. The fact that I > did not object to publishing a snapshot as Working Draft does *not* indicate > that I was ok with including Microdata at that point. > > Best regards, > > Julian > > > I agree with Julian. The document published in August was described as a heartbeat document. At the time, there was also a great deal of confusion about how to propose changes, issue Formal Objections, and what the flow would be for bug to issue to FO. These have since been clarified with the new WG procedures. According to these procedures, we can continue to lobby for separation of Microdata into a separate spec. Shelley
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 19:17:52 UTC