Re: Microdata integration

On 07/04/2013 04:48 , Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Robin Berjon, Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:03:38 +0200:
>> 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?

The integration details will be in HTML rather than Microdata. Nothing 
else will change.

> 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.

You're reasoning in the abstract. The editors have looked at the 
implementation. Our approach would mean less work and fewer errors.

>> 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?

I know that people interested in RDFa integration are reading this list. 
As for other questions, feel free to ask them.

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

Anyone who has actually looked at the problem in any detail can tell you 
that's not the case.

Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 09:23:59 UTC