Re: Issue-72: Microdata/RDFa: Chairs Solicit *COUNTER* proposals

On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Sam Ruby <>  
> wrote:
>> Current status is that we have a Working Group draft that contains  
>> Microdata
>> in the HTML5 specification, and a Change Proposal to split  
>> Microdata out
>> into a separate document:
>> The current draft was produced before we instituted the current  
>> process
>> requiring rationale in commit messages, so if there are anybody who  
>> prefers
>> the draft as it is (or even wants to make a different Change  
>> Proposal), what
>> we need is a Change Proposal (possibly with "zero edits" as the  
>> Proposal
>> Details), but with similar level of detail in the other sections to  
>> what
>> Manu produced.
> What is the purpose of a "zero edits" Change Proposal?

As co-Chairs, we're supposed to try to choose the alternative that  
draws the weakest objections. Personally, I take this to mean not the  
most vehemently expressed objections, but rather the ones with the  
best rationale.

Manu's document collects the rationale for removing Microdata from the  
main spec (and thus the rationale for objections to leaving it in).  
There were a number of reasons given in the other direction in the  
email thread[1]. It would be really useful to the chairs if someone  
would collect them together so we can judge the right next step.

This doesn't have to be a big deal - just quoting the reasons for  
keeping Microdata in the spec given on the mailing list would be fine  
as far as I am concerned. I think this would amount to less work than  
we originally asked of Manu in making his Change Proposal.


and subsequent messages.

Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 22:56:40 UTC