Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML Microdata to Candidate Recommendation

On 2012-11-26 04:20, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 05:21 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> The question that I'm asking the HTML WG to discuss is why it's
>>> publishing a spec whose functionality is duplicated in another W3C
>>> spec.
>>
>> The HTML WG is doing so based on the following Working Group
>> Decision on ISSUE-76, where the Working Group explicitly decided not
>> to pick a winner between HTML Microdata and HTML+RDFa:
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/att-0218/issue-76-decision.html>
>
> The question before the HTML WG at the time was whether or not to split
> Microdata out of the HTML5 specification, not the publishing track for
> the Microdata document.
>
> At the time the decision was made, RDFa Lite 1.1 did not exist, RDFa
> Lite 1.1 was not a W3C Recommendation, nor did the RDFa and Microdata
> functionality so greatly overlap as much as they do now.
>
> The decision states the following under the "Revisiting the issue" section:
>
> "If Microdata and RDFa converge in syntax..."
>
> I argue that since Microdata can be interpreted as RDFa based on a
> simple search-and-replace of attributes that the languages have
> effectively converged on syntax except for the attribute names.
>
>> This decision was largely based on the following Change Proposal,
>> which argued persuasively in favor of "allowing many flowers to
>> bloom":
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0299.html>
>
> Yes, and at that time, Microdata and RDFa had enough differences to
> warrant that approach. Fast forward two years and the differences
> between Microdata and RDFa Lite are so small that they're almost
> technically indistinguishable from one another to many Web developers.
>
> We're not talking about two different flowers anymore. We're talking
> about two clones that are almost technically indistinguishable from the
> other.
>
> -- manu

For the record: I agree with Manu. It seems that the Microdata synta 
simply duplicates what RDFa Lite already does. Publishing both as CRs 
will unnecessarily cause confusion about what to use (or whether to use 
both). At a minimum, it would be good to have a statement somewhere that 
explains the situation and provides some guidance for authors, but then, 
coming up with the exact text of that statement will probably be as 
controversial as everything else relating to this topic.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 15:54:44 UTC