Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Microdata as First Public Working Draft and a new HTML5 Working Draft

Although Working Draft publications do not require consensus, I  
encourage you to consider withdrawing this objection for the following  
reasons:

- The HTML WG charter specifically calls for us to include extension  
mechanisms: "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to  
permit independently developed vocabularies ... to be mixed into HTML  
documents." Microdata is one way to mix in such vocabularies.
- There is precedent for this Working Group to publish a separate  
Working Draft that adds an extension mechanism to HTML, namely HTML 
+RDFa. No one objected to that publication as out of scope, either  
before or after publication.
- Most importantly, Working Draft publications do not have to have  
consensus and do not even meet requirements. In the spirit of wider  
review and openness to exploratory development, this Working Group has  
previously approved Working Drafts that not all members agreed with on  
a technical level.

(No need to comment further if you stand by your objection.)

Regards,
Maciej


On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> I’m opposed to publishing microdata as a FPWD of W3C HTML WG because
> it is not in the charter, or reasonably linked to any deliverable
> the working group is committed to, and there are many other
> much higher priority tasks and documents that the working group
> should put its attention to.
>
> I support publication of HTML 5 without microdata because
> it actually brings the working group closer to its goals.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org]  
> On Behalf Of Krzysztof Maczynski
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:21 PM
> To: Maciej Stachowiak
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CfC: Publish HTML5 Microdata as First Public Working  
> Draft and a new HTML5 Working Draft
>
> I oppose publishing HTML5 Microdata as an FPWD. The course of action  
> I'd prefer would be to publish a Microdata spec usable outside HTML,  
> perhaps with an appendix describing specific additional requirements  
> (as few as possible) for HTML integration (or a separate spec,  
> following the example of RDFa in XHTML). I believe this WG is  
> neither capable (mainly because of the Editor's unwillingness) nor  
> chartered (and accurately so) to do the former. If the RDFa WG  
> follows up with such a draft (most likely in the form of RDFa 1.1  
> taking into account the advantages of Microdata), we may investigate  
> the possibility to build on this.
>
> Regarding a new WD of HTML,
>> I support publication
>> of a new HTML5 Working Draft solely to stop Wikipedians from trying  
>> to
>> move [[HTML5]] back to [[HTML 5]] based on a months-old Working Draft
>> that uses a space in the name.  ;)
> (Aryeh Gregor)
> I'd like to ask for the rationale of this change.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Krzysztof Maczyński
>

Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 01:08:41 UTC