Re: New HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft (2010-02-16)

On 02/17/2010 04:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> There is a new HTML+RDFa draft available that includes all of the bugs
>> logged against the "HTML+RDFa" project in W3C Bugzilla as of right now.
>> This draft attempts to resolve the publication issues raised with the
>> latest heartbeat requirement, namely:
> My apologies as I didn't catch this before: I don't believe that
> including all bug reports is a viable and scalable approach that can be
> consistently applied across all documents.

There is some mis-communication or a misconception about the approach
taken for including bugs in the HTML+RDFa spec.

I'd like to know more about your thought process, as I disagree with
your conclusion. I do think that this is not only viable, but also
consistent and scalable.

Note that the bugs listed in the status sections of the HTML+RDFa
specification are only for the HTML+RDFa Bugzilla component, it doesn't
include "all bug reports".

> I am not comfortable with a plan that requires each and every document
> produced by this working group to list each and every bug that may
> apply to that document.

The process is automated, the code is open source, and it is the same
sort of process that is applied to the HTML5 spec. The only difference
is that the HTML5 spec includes all OPEN issues, and the HTML+RDFa spec
currently includes all OPEN issues and all OPEN bugs.

> I am not comfortable with a plan which enables
> different editors to pick different criteria for determining which bugs
> to list.

Neither am I, which is why all OPEN issues and OPEN bugs are included.
I'm attempting to be as transparent as possible to those that may read
the document.

> What we agreed to do last time the HTML 5 draft was published was to
> ***only*** include markers for issues in the document, and to follow the
> Decision Process for opening issues.

The only word I disagree with there is the word "only". Remove it from
the statement and I agree with you.

The HTML+RDFa draft contains several sections with class="XXX", which
are warnings, outlined in red, to readers about underlying concerns
contained in the section. Bugs are another indicator of concerns by
people that are not the editor. Bugs can also inform the reader about
issues surrounding a particular section of the specification.

So, the question becomes - why am I allowed to mark blocks with
class="XXX" but not class="annotation" when they are both discussing

I'm not asserting that Ian needs to now start including W3C bugs in the
specification that he is handing over to W3C to publish. I'm saying that
the HTML+RDFa spec has all OPEN bugs and OPEN issues listed in the
status sections, and that's is a super-set of what is required by this
Working Group.

The script that generates these is unbiased, if you don't believe me,
just look at the code[1]. The script could also be applied to all
documents that this WG publishes, but that discussion and decision is
left to the discretion of the WG.

What am I missing?

> Manu: does this work for you?

I'm going to push back on this until I can understand the reasoning
behind what you are requesting.

-- manu


Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source

Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 00:00:58 UTC