- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:13:51 -0500
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 02/17/2010 07:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Manu: can I get you to make a comment in the following bug: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9001 I have responded. Manu's Response for Bug#9001: > Sam has asked me to comment on this bug. > > We're in a catch-22 here: > > First, Larry and Julian wanted the SotD sections to reflect the issues > concerning Microdata, HTML+RDFa and Canvas 2D. It was a reasonable request, so > I made it. Then I found out that the SotD sections are off-limits to editors. > > Maciej had logged a number of bugs related to the HTML+RDFa draft. It was both > more transparent to the reader, and easier for me to understand the state of > the draft by inserting those bugs in line with each section. Also, in the name > of compromise, I added Larry and Julian's issues to the bug list so they would > be interested in the document to notify the W3C team to keep the bugs in mind > when re-writing the SotD section. > > The only issue that relates to HTML+RDFa is ISSUE-41, and it doesn't really > apply to any particular section, but the concept that HTML+RDFa may one day be > specified in a different way in order to be integrated with HTML5. I put a > temporary placeholder bug to point to ISSUE-41 while some of the source code > was figured out for integrating issues into the HTML+RDFa draft. > > Now I'm being asked to remove all of the bugs from the status sections in the > HTML+RDFa draft and make the SotD section match the HTML5 draft. This makes the > current status of the HTML+RDFa draft much more difficult to grok for > reviewers... it is less transparent as a result. In addition, we're completely > ignoring Julian and Larry's input for the SotD section in the current draft, > which may result in objections to publish the draft. > > That said, I'll do what the chairs are asking (even though I think it harms the > readability and transparency of the specification): > > 1. Revert the SotD section to what was there over a month ago. > 2. Remove all bugs reported in the status sections of the HTML+RDFa spec. > 3. Modify the wording of one of the bugs and insert ISSUE-41 as a blocking item > for HTML+RDFa LC. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 05:14:22 UTC