- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:58:50 +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, Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:32:22 +0000 (UTC): > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>> >>>> Alternately: Ian, would you be OK with changing the title from "HTML5 >>>> Microdata" to either "HTML+Microdata" or "HTML Microdata" or >>>> something similar? >>> >>> Not really... that would give people the impression that Microdata >>> wasn't part of HTML5, which I believe it should be. >> >> As opposed to giving the impression that it's part of HTML? > > 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 > a candidate for "relevant specification", in HTML5 terms. I believe > Microdata should be considered an integral part of HTML5. Comment/Question: > 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. HTML+RDFa says: "This specification is an extension to the HTML5 language." Given the WG's decision, Microdata and HTML+RDFa should say the same thing - whatever they say - about the relation to the HTML5 language. > What I object to is making Microdata a second-class > citizen that, e.g., validators can validly claim is not part of HTML5. There you touch upon a subject w.r.t. to versioning which has been largely ignored by this group. Currently, if we do http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatwg.org then the validator auto-recognizes the validation profile between 18 available HTML and XHTML profiles. You have put in the HTML5 spec that HTML5 can simply be extended through writing a spec which extends it. However, you have not placed inside HTML5 a mechanism by which a validator can know which version of HTML5 to validate against. If this WG continues to refuse to make a choice between HTML+RDFa and Microdata, and if it also do not place a versioning mechanism in the non-extended HTML5 language, then I cannot imagine that validator.w3.org will forever operate with a HTML5 validation profile which (like validator.nu already does) includes Microdata, but doesn't include HTML+RDFa. And, at any rate, without a versioning mechanism, then merely the presence of Microdata and HTML+RDFa means that there will be more than one HTML5 validation level profile. We can EITHER fully include both HTML+RDFa as part of the HTML5 language. OR we can start to operate with a versioning mechanism. OR we can require that validators, whenever they detect something which is not part of "HTML5 proper", that they perform a heuristic check and try to validate against another HTML5 profile. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 15:59:24 UTC