W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Microdata integration

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 04:48:00 +0200
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: HTML WG (public-html@w3.org) <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130407044800722113.b7ec5bb9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Robin Berjon, Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:03:38 +0200:

It is unclear to me how the Microdata issue is different from other 
differences between the to specifications of HTML.

> 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.

What are the consequences for the Microdata spec itself? Are things 
going to be taken out of it/not be added to it? Microdata features 
described two places - in HTML5 and in Microdata - sounds like the 
"merging points" still has to be located in order to be added to the 
separate Microdata spec = partly demotes the point about how this 
change would simplify life for the editors.

> 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.

An integrated extension *has* special status, kind of …
 
> 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.

Have the RDFa working group been properly asked? Why wouldn't they want 
'RDFa integration'? Why wouldn't it be good 'mostly for validators', to 
have info about the RDFa integration points in the spec?

> 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.

But if RDFa wants the same integration, the editors’ work would 
seemingly be increased.

The Microdata details are not the only part of HTMl5 were coherence 
could seem to suffer due to edits only meant for the WHATwg or the 
HTMLwg version. When changes are done only in the HTMLwg version, one 
(read: editors) doesn't always fully understand the implication of the 
changes.

The only real cure to lack of coherence is that the editors - and those 
of us that file bugs etc - triple their efforts to deliver a coherent 
spec. 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2013 02:48:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:32 UTC