- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:36:43 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > Having just "HTML" in the name makes it sound like it's an independent > spec that one can consider part of HTML, or ignore. It makes it sound like Indeed. As far as I can tell, that was the intent, and what the WG decided. > a candidate for "relevant specification", in HTML5 terms. I believe > Microdata should be considered an integral part of HTML5. Whether that is > by having a single specification for HTML5, or having HTML5 split into > modules with Microdata being one of them, I don't really mind. I would be > fine with calling the draft "HTML Microdata" or just "Microdata", provided > that the spec clearly stated it was part of an HTML5 family of > specifications. What I object to is making Microdata a second-class Do we have a definition of "HTML5 family of specifications"? > citizen that, e.g., validators can validly claim is not part of HTML5. It is not. The same way RDFa isn't. Do we need a clarification from the chairs? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 05:37:19 UTC