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

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> ...
> 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")
> Rationale:  
> 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.
> ...

+1. The titles should be consistent.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 19:58:34 UTC