W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2010

Re: New HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft (2010-02-16)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:13:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7CCC8F.7070602@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 02/17/2010 07:19 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Manu: can I get you to make a comment in the following bug:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9001

I have responded.

Manu's Response for Bug#9001:
> Sam has asked me to comment on this bug.
> We're in a catch-22 here:
> First, Larry and Julian wanted the SotD sections to reflect the issues
> concerning Microdata, HTML+RDFa and Canvas 2D. It was a reasonable request, so
> I made it. Then I found out that the SotD sections are off-limits to editors.
> Maciej had logged a number of bugs related to the HTML+RDFa draft. It was both
> more transparent to the reader, and easier for me to understand the state of
> the draft by inserting those bugs in line with each section. Also, in the name
> of compromise, I added Larry and Julian's issues to the bug list so they would
> be interested in the document to notify the W3C team to keep the bugs in mind
> when re-writing the SotD section.
> The only issue that relates to HTML+RDFa is ISSUE-41, and it doesn't really
> apply to any particular section, but the concept that HTML+RDFa may one day be
> specified in a different way in order to be integrated with HTML5. I put a
> temporary placeholder bug to point to ISSUE-41 while some of the source code
> was figured out for integrating issues into the HTML+RDFa draft.
> Now I'm being asked to remove all of the bugs from the status sections in the
> HTML+RDFa draft and make the SotD section match the HTML5 draft. This makes the
> current status of the HTML+RDFa draft much more difficult to grok for
> reviewers... it is less transparent as a result. In addition, we're completely
> ignoring Julian and Larry's input for the SotD section in the current draft,
> which may result in objections to publish the draft.
> That said, I'll do what the chairs are asking (even though I think it harms the
> readability and transparency of the specification):
> 1. Revert the SotD section to what was there over a month ago.
> 2. Remove all bugs reported in the status sections of the HTML+RDFa spec.
> 3. Modify the wording of one of the bugs and insert ISSUE-41 as a blocking item
> for HTML+RDFa LC.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 05:14:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:16 UTC