- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:09:16 +0000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 22:12 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive > responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Thursday, > January 24, this resolution will carry. I have very mixed feelings about this one. I've been trying to come up with a clear response for a few days, but my position seems to waver between objecting and offering my services to co-edit such a draft, and everywhere in between. On one hand, I don't think Microdata (as-is) is very good. On the other hand, with a bit more work, I do think it has the potential to become a useful format. In an ideal world, I'd like to see RDFa take some ideas from Microdata (I'm not going to go into specifics in this message) and the need for the latter to evaporate. In which case putting Microdata on the Recommendation track at this stage might lead to author confusion further down the line if the W3C endorses two competing standards for embedding data in (X)HTML. My suggestion is that Microdata should be allowed to evolve as an editors' draft until we can see the direction RDFa 1.1 is headed. There doesn't seem to be any pressing need to publish Microdata as a WD right now; there seems to be no harm in delaying. I'd also suggest that Microdata be worked on not in isolation by the HTML Working Group, but by a joint task force formally involving, say, the Semantic Web Interest Group, and with a liason to the RDFa Working Group, assuming such a group will exist. So as I said, I do want to support progression with Microdata, and hope that I can contribute positively to its development, but I'm not sure the time is right to publish as a FPWD. This is not however a formal objection. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:10:24 UTC