Re: Microdata integration

Anything that prevents a error prone process is a win for me.
Charlie

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Steve Faulkner wrote:

> sounds reasonable to me.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
>
> On 3 April 2013 17:03, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'robin@w3.org');>> 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
>> HTML.
>>
>> 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 - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>>
>>
>

-- 
Charlie
http://about.me/charlielee