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

Maciej Stachowiak, Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:14:10 -0800:
> On Jan 10, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Philip J├Ągenstedt wrote:
>> Given that there are objections, what is the procedure? 
> A Working Draft does not require consensus, and it seems like this 
> one has a lot of support, and does meet the "at least 3 independent 
> contributors" standard. In general, for an FPWD resolution with some 
> objections but also significant support, the chairs could proceed in 
> one of several ways:
> 1) Ask objectors (either privately or publicly) to consider 
> withdrawing their objections.
> 2) Ask for revisions to the draft that would remove objections -- 
> that's assuming any of the objectors have described changes that 
> would remove their objection.
> 3) Decide to proceed notwithstanding objections.
> 4) Decide to hold off and raise the matter again in the future.
> Currently we have two objections that have not been withdrawn.

I must unfortunately change my support for the publication of a FPWD of 
Microdata to an objection. I have one condition, with two alternative 
solutions, for lifting my objection:

 EITHER: Solicit with the community behind HTML+RDFa about changing the 
title "HTML+RDFa" to e.g. "HTML5+RDFa", "HTML5 RDFa" or "HTML5 with 
RDFa" (or another name that includes "HTML5"). Then I could accept 
"HTML5 Microdata" as title of the FPWD of Microdata. (Both title and 
subtitle count as "title")

 OR: Solicit with the community behind Microdata to change the title of 
the FPWD to "HTML+Microdata" or some other name which do not include 
the word "HTML5". (Both title and subtitle count as "title")


I have not checked when Ian came up with the title "HTML5 microdata", 
however, I expressed my support in response to Maciej's letter, where 
no title was mentioned. This was also before  Ian issued his proposal 
to split HTML5 into 6 separate HTML5 FPWDs, including "HTML5 Microdata" 
[1][2]. And especially the title "HTML5 Microdata" (and in particular 
when compared with the title "HTML+RDFa") makes it look as if nothing 
actually has happened to Microdata - Microdata appears back in HTML 5, 
despite that it was recorded in the WG decision that putting Microdata 
back in HTML 5 would only be considered if there were new info.

A perhaps more important point in the WG decision about Microdata was 
to let RDFa and Microdata compete on an equal footing. However, with 
the current names, then "HTML5 Microdata" looks more "HTML5" than 
"HTML+RDFa", which could create an imbalanced impression of the one 
against the other.


leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 19:51:46 UTC