W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: New round of Working Drafts (was Re: New split-out drafts)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:45:09 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1002030345y2b162cddi2b8b9ea9087bde87@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> A bigger issue is that the draft (at least the Feb 03 version at <http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/>) re-introduces the predefined vocabularies that were removed from HTML5 earlier on; I believe that is either an oversight, or an attempt to undo an earlier change. Whatever the reason is, I object to the publication of this with this addition.
> Specifically what we previously agreed to (by amicable resolution) was to take them out of HTML5 and consider publishing them as a separate draft (most of the objections were specifically to having this content in the HTML5 spec itself). I don't think we specifically said anything about whether the separate draft they go in could contain Microdata itself, so this doesn't violate the letter of the agreement IMO. It's not really clear to me if it violates the spirit. Maybe others have opinions.
> As discussed on IRC, I agree that we should point this out in the CfC, and Working Group members can come to their own conclusions.

For the record, I would prefer to see microdata published without the
vocabularies. While I support microdata itself, and plan on getting it
implemented in firefox, that does not at this time apply to the

Specifically our plan for now is to let extensions implement the
various vocabularies, and only implement the core microdata syntax in
firefox itself.

This in order to gauge which vocabularies has support among authors
and users, and which do not.

In other words, this is not to say that I see anything particularly
wrong with the vocabularies. I'd just rather see them developed
separately to the core language.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 11:46:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC