Re: Microdata integration

sounds reasonable to me.



HTML 5.1 <>

On 3 April 2013 17:03, Robin Berjon <> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I've been poring over the way in which the HTML specification source is
> organised in order to split out Microdata (which as you know isn't split in
> the WHAT version) and I have come to the conclusion that it is problematic.
> Without boring you with extensive diffs, the way it's done is basically
> this:
>  Anywhere that Microdata integrates with other parts of HTML, some small
> sections, sometimes just a few words, are fenced off to ensure they don't
> get generated as part of the HTML draft.
>  That content is then duplicated in a special section that is only
> included in the W3C Microdata draft.
> I'm sure that the fine bunch of hackers that you all are can immediately
> spot the problem here. That content easily goes out of sync. What's more,
> changes fencing off (or, worse, failing to fence off) a few words here and
> there in a 120K lines document are easily missed.
> So I don't think that that's a viable way forward, and am proposing a
> change. Microdata remains defined as a separate specification (I don't mind
> merging it if people prefer, but I don't think that that will be
> acceptable). However the integration points where it modified HTML are in
> Before anyone climbs on any manner or form of high horse, here are the
> aspects that this has an impact on:
>    Validation constraints (if you have itemprop, you must have
> href/src/etc.; some global attributes are added; under such and such
> condition some elements may becomes flow or sectioning content)
>    A small change to DnD
>    Appendix listings
>    Acknowledgements
> None of this in any way mandates MD, or grants it special status. It's
> just providing integration information, mostly for validators.
> If this is a concern for RDFa people, I would be more than happy to
> entertain a similar set up for RDFa if you think it makes sense.
> As a final note, please consider that while this is obviously open to
> discussion, maintaining the current system involves a lot of dull,
> error-prone make-work and painstaking bug and regression finding for the
> editors. We would therefore require that you kindly take that into account
> before objecting, and that you make sure that any objection are based on
> the type of solid concerns that justify sending sweet, innocent, funny,
> charming, and by and large beloved people into the salt mines of Mordor.
> --
> Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 16:09:47 UTC