Re: The next HTML+RDFa Heartbeat

On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 03/30/2010 04:52 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>>
>> People from both the RDFa and Microformats communities have provided
>> lots of feedback on Microdata since its initial inclusion in the  
>> HTML5
>> spec, which has resulted in a significantly better design. So yes, I
>> think we've got (c) covered.
>
> (RDFa co-chair hat off)
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think that community cross-pollination has been
> as widespread as we would all like to believe that it has been. I take
> exception to Ed's statement above.
>
> Having spoken with a number of people in the Microformats and Linked
> Data community, I know more than a few that refuse to take any part
> reviewing/using the Microdata specification. Some of this has to do  
> with
> the way it came about, some of them feel that the editor isn't  
> listening
> to them, some of it has to do with fundamental design decisions made  
> in
> Microdata, and some of it is for techno-religious reasons.
>
> The same can be said for RDFa - to each coin, two sides.

It's true that some pepole have chosen not to spend their time on  
cross-review of deliverables that they do not support. However, I  
believe there has been a significant level of cross-review, and  
certainly at least for the HTML WG's specs, a great deal of notice  
about the drafts and opportunity to review. Ultimately, you can't  
force people to do something they are not terribly interested in, but  
what I'm most interested in is what concrete steps we can take to  
enable and encourage broader review.

> I would suggest that this Working Group makes it a point to have the
> RDFa WG review the Microdata specification when it goes to LC.

RDFa WG is certainly on the (long) list of WGs from which we will seek  
review. It is likely we will ask for initial cross-WG review even  
before Last Call; W3C Working Groups are encouraged to coordinate with  
other Working Groups before even entering Last Call, although this is  
not often followed in practice.

> Similarly, this WG should make it a point to ensure that WHATWG  
> reviews
> the RDFa Core 1.1, HTML+RDFa, and RDFa DOM API specification when it
> goes to LC.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this WG" in context (this thread is  
cross-posted, and incidentally, I believe not everyone's reply is  
getting to both lists). It seems to me that it is the RDFa WG's  
responsibility to seek cross-functional review of RDFa Core 1.1 and  
RDFa DOM API; I hope HTML WG is on the list of other WGs that should  
review. And it is the HTML WG's responsibility to ensure cross- 
functional review of HTML+RDFa. RDFa WG will certainly be on the list  
for that.

Regards,
Maciej