Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

On Feb 11, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Finally, more alignment with the sister specification (RDFa) would  
> be good. It currently has:
> "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft  
> does not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C  
> as a whole. In particular,
>    * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without  
> using RDFa, such as [microdata].
>    * There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms,  
> covered in [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating  
> RDFa.
>    * There is concern that continued development of this document  
> belongs in a different working group."
> which I think is very helpful in understanding the status of these  
> documents.

How about if we handle concerns with the documents with the same kinds  
of issue markers that the HTML5 draft has, as suggested by Sam?  
Linking to an issue and stating that it blocks progress to Last Call  
seems to be completely uncontroversial. However, markers that put the  
wording of the objection inline and don't link to an issue seem to  
cause arguments.

This was strikingly demonstrated by Manu's request to publish a draft  
with some issue markers handpicked and expressed in the form of his  
own opinion on the problem. That caused a great deal of controversy.  
However, James Graham subsequently did the work to automatically add  
status markers for all issues that simply provided the issue number,  
short name, link to the issue, and a statement that the issue blocks  
progress to Last Call. That went through with absolutely no  
controversy and I believe everyone is happy with the result.

I suspect the automated marker adding tool would work for ISSUE-41 if  
we just add the appropriate other section. For your other two  
concerns, are these recorded as bugs or issues?


Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 02:11:22 UTC