- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:27:19 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
To: >> Do you agree the introduction of microdata as an alternative >> way of satisfying RDFa requirements might not be a >> 'removal', but it was advocating an alternative to one >> of the proposed vocabularies & extension mechanisms? > It was indeed advocating an alternative, and the Working Group has > decided to allow both alternatives to progress independently. Excuse me? The question of "allow both alternatives to progress independently" seems to be the topic of this discussion. Are you now claiming the working group has already decided on FPWD of the Microdata document? If so, when was this decision made, and by which process of the decision policy? I don't think the working group has "decided" to "allow both alternatives to progress independently", and I'm opposed to doing so. Perhaps the working group will decide to do so over my (and others') oppositions, but the working group actually needs to decide that. >> It would seem to me we could just as well delay publication >> of microdata as an extensibility mechanism until ISSUE-41 >> is resolved, since that has a finite conclusion, and >> we can then evaluate how the microdata mechanism would >> interact with whatever the resolution of ISSUE-41 >> might be. > That could take several months. I would rather not delay in the > meantime. I understand your personal preference, but I think the case for resolving ISSUE-41 first before adding new work on other extensibility mechanisms makes more sense. > We can always choose to abandon a piece of work in the > future. If we have to do that without the buy-in of the respective > editor, then the ultimate mechanism would be an Issue and Change > Proposal against that draft, that changes its status to non-normative > and adds a clear indication that the work is abandoned. If this is now part of the working group decision policy, I think it needs to be made clear -- that working drafts can be abandoned this way? It doesn't seem to fit into the policy as described, although I can see how you might want to extend the process that way, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. > If a Last Call > resolution failed, we would also consider such measures. My own > preference would be to give proposed drafts a chance to show their > value, as long as they are bona-fide products of the Working Group and > reasonably related to our work. I'm not sure how you evaluate "bona-fide products of the Working Group", but Microdata doesn't seem to fit that criterion in my opinion. My preference would be for the working group to focus its review (and everyone's review) on the core document that the working group was chartered to deliver, and not to continue to expand the scope while not addressing core issues. Regards, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 18:28:16 UTC