- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of 1981km@gmail.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:10:01 +0000
- To: www-archive@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'ISSUE-76 - Microdata - Straw Poll for Objections' (HTML Working Group) for Krzysztof Maczynski. --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Split Microdata ---- We have a Change Proposal to Separate Microdata from the HTML5 Specification. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Rationale: --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep Microdata ---- We have a Change Proposal to Keep Microdata in the HTML5 Specification. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Rationale: Objection 1 Rec-track work on Microdata is not an option for this WG allowed by charter. Objection 2 The authors of Microdata claim that their design goal was to satisfy the use cases given by the community interested in this kind of embedding additional semantics. However, the community isn't satisfied with the result and generally prefers the RDFa approach (including a clear path for evolution, addressing issues by sincerely interested RDFa WG members, integration with languages other than (X)HTML). Objection 3 (This is also the problem underlying Objection 2.) Leaders of support for Microdata have for a few years repeatedly stated their belief that the Web should not accommodate a technology for solving the Semantic Web (or, as some like it, semanic web) community's use cases. It woulde therefore be naive to assume that they will continue to nourish that community and evolve the spec to their liking (or indeed, that they already have so far), much less that they'd welcome on-par involvement of experts from that community or any meaningful form of dialogue. Objection 4 Microdata is a political attempt at preventing RDFa from achieving more success. This can be seen from Objection 3, unilateral faits accomplis, as well as the Editor's employer's most likely purposeful misimplementation of RDFa (see e.g. http://iandavis.com/blog/2009/05/googles-rdfa-a-damp-squib, although it's easy to be picky at the points where the author's formulation lacks some clarity), tormenting the market (since it's not just a partial implementation - there are actually wrong triples extracted) and dumbing RDFa down to the level of Microdata, making the advantages of the latter (which it does have and they're informing RDFa 1.1) shine in comparison. Answers to some objections to the other CP (Those are based by some form of analogy on assumptions about things which don't belong to the issue at hand, but these assumptions aren't universally accepted, quite the opposite. This weakens their position by rendering those arguments ungrounded.) @Anne van Kesteren: Indeed, video, audio, canvas and img are inappropriate in a markup language for hyperTEXT. object with specific bindings for top-level media types associated in a UA's stylesheet would be the correct generic approach, technically superior for all. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0739.html. Also see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-forms-req#reqintro and please stop trying to take us several years back. @Henri Sivonen: Ian Hickson admits trying unsuccessfully to forestall XForms. Work on Web Forms 2.0 was done outside W3C and later brought into it by the political power of just a few companies against otherwise accepted migration to a superior technology (XForms). XForms supporters know they currently have to tolerate the development of the old forms within HTML5. As one of them, I believe (and it seems to me that many would agree) that in clean projects XForms will be used anyway with potential dynamic translation to HTML5 forms where a user agent doesn't support it. As you can see, the new features of the old forms aren't becoming popular in actual documents. We already knew better in 1999, see http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xhtml-forms-req-19990830#req. These answers were last modified on 17 December 2009 at 16:04:18 U.T.C. by Krzysztof Maczynski Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/ until 2009-12-17. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 16:10:03 UTC