This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #13100 +++ public-html-comments posting from: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> http://www.w3.org/mid/4E04A795.5020609@arcanedomain.com SUMMARY Arising from its Last Call review of the HTML5 suite of specifications, the TAG wishes to raise issues on both the HTML microdata [1] and HTML+RDFa 1.1 [2] Working Drafts. Specifically, our opinion is that the W3C should not publish two specifications that meet such similar requirements in incompatible ways. We think doing so would cause confusion for users and implementers, promote lock-in, and fragment the web. We request that the W3C Director set up a task force to find agreement on a way forward. DETAIL The RDF data generated by microdata and RDFa processors is different both for documents containing no additional data markup and for documents that contain RDFa. This incompatibility might possibly be remedied by removing the relevant sections from the microdata specification, but there are deeper problems that arise from the fact that the two technologies do much the same thing in different ways. Users find it hard to choose which to use. It is hard for users to move between them because they are outwardly very similar but have differences in parsing algorithms that are not immediately obvious. From a publisher's point of view, using both within a document leads to repetition; using only one means locking yourself into a particular technology stack and set of consumers. Similarly, from an implementer or consumer's point of view, implementing both increases code quantity and complexity, but implementing only one excludes potential customers or data providers. Both specifications come from a community interested in publishing and consuming structured data within Web pages. The TAG's purpose here is not to comment on the relative merits of the technologies, nor to signal whether one or the other might have preferred status due to history of deployment. Rather, we are raising the issue that the W3C has before it two Last Call Working Drafts specifying capabilities that overlap and that will cause incompatibilities if deployed together. It would be irresponsible for the TAG not to attempt to help the community to reconcile the two specifications. We therefore suggest that W3C create a task force of people who are knowledgeable about publishing, processing and consuming structured data, including those invested in microdata, RDFa and microformats, to provide input and focus to the HTML WG in aligning the two specifications. We suggest the task force investigate options including, but not limited to: * combining RDFa and microdata into a single language with two conformance levels, with consistent processing between the two that enable advanced users to use more complex features that are recognised by advanced processors, without rendering their data invisible to simpler processors * combining RDFa and microdata into a single language that is a middle ground between the two technologies * retaining both microdata and RDFa as separate syntaxes, but ensuring that there is a clear story that enables users and implementers to choose which to use or implement, that both can be used within the same document without incompatibility in the RDF that is generated from them, that as much code as possible can be reused in their implementation, and that users can easily transition between the two syntaxes The task force should be tasked to strive towards compatibility with other W3C specifications, particularly HTML5. It should also take into consideration other existing specifications, and impacts on existing user and implementer communities. Thank you very much. Noah Mendelsohn for the W3C Technical Architecture Group [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-microdata-20110525/ [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-in-html-20110525/
The bug is accepted, there was a discussion about this during the RDF Web Apps telecon today, more information on the RDFa WG's position can be found here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-06-30#Official_Position_on_WWW__2d_TAG_issue The RDF Web Apps WG will have an official response to the TAG within a week. I'm assuming that the resolution of this bug will depend on the creation and proper execution of the Task Force described by the TAG in their comment.
The HTML WG discussed this item at our Jun 30 weekly distributed meeting. See: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/30-html-wg-minutes.html#item09 /paulc
(In reply to comment #1) > I'm assuming that the resolution of this bug will depend on the creation and > proper execution of the Task Force described by the TAG in their comment. That is a risky assumption given that the Last Call ends on Aug 4 which is less than one month away and the TF has not yet been created. I encourage you to provide specific more actionable changes that can be made as Last Call comments ASAP. /paulc
(In reply to comment #3) > That is a risky assumption given that the Last Call ends on Aug 4 which > is less than one month away and the TF has not yet been created. From my understanding, the HTML WG's Last Call timeline doesn't matter if both the RDFa and Microdata specs in HTML5 are blocked indefinitely from publication as RECs until the Task Force decides a reasonable path forward. We will exit HTML WG Last Call with documents that will, at worst, be blocked from going to REC or at best, will have architectural issues logged against them during Candidate REC. What am I missing? > I encourage you to provide specific more actionable changes that can be made as > Last Call comments ASAP. I could do that, but I'm concerned that it would be perceived as an attack against the Microdata group. I'm currently in the middle of trying to pull each of these groups together to try and figure out if there is a reasonable compromise that can be worked out. I can't be effective at doing that and logging "bugs" against the Microdata spec. I have clearly outlined the differences between Microdata, RDFa and Microformats here: http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/ I have a hard time calling these things "bugs" as they are really just use cases that are and are not supported by each mechanism. There are a few things that qualify as bugs, but the rest are design decisions based on a subset of use cases that each group decided to address. The real bug is that the HTML WG is pushing two solutions forward that do effectively the same thing (from the perception of the majority of Web developers). This is confusing people, in that they don't know which one to pick. It is creating a situation where the early adopters are screwed when a search company like Google picks a winner, and where the rest of the folks that just want a single solution are waiting for the dust to settle before implementing. It's confusing the market and slowing adoption. I say this knowing that I was one of the people advocating that the W3C publish two solutions to the same problem. Advocating this position was a mistake, in hindsight. I will personally, (not on behalf of the RDF Web Apps WG) log bugs against Microdata if one of two things happen: 1) The Chairs of the HTML WG request that all design issues and bugs known to me are logged against Microdata. 2) Ian, Henri and the rest of the WHATWG folks ask me to log all design issues and bugs that have been identified over the past two years on Microdata into the HTML WG issue tracker.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > That is a risky assumption given that the Last Call ends on Aug 4 which > > is less than one month away and the TF has not yet been created. > From my understanding, the HTML WG's Last Call timeline doesn't matter if both > the RDFa and Microdata specs in HTML5 are blocked indefinitely from publication > as RECs until the Task Force decides a reasonable path forward. We will exit > HTML WG Last Call with documents that will, at worst, be blocked from going to > REC or at best, will have architectural issues logged against them during > Candidate REC. What am I missing? I am going to respond to just the first part of your comment. The TAG has filed a Last Call comment and this comment has been filed against both the RDFa and Microdata Last Call Working Drafts. The WG Chairs intend on processing these comments according to our WG Decision Policy. This means the bugs which have been assigned a Priority of P1 will be first processed by the respective specification Editors and then will be subject to escalation as per the Decision Policy. BTW, I see nothing in the TAG's comment that implies they intend to block these drafts from going forward. I suppose it is possible that the TAG might want to file a Formal Objection if the HTML WG does not process these bugs to their satisfaction but we are a long ways away from that stage. /paulc
(In reply to comment #4) > I could do that, but I'm concerned that it would be perceived as an attack > against the Microdata group. I'm currently in the middle of trying to pull each > of these groups together to try and figure out if there is a reasonable > compromise that can be worked out. I can't be effective at doing that and > logging "bugs" against the Microdata spec. Please file bugs! There is no greater form of flattery in the spec world. I volunteer to eat my hat if anyone should get the least bit offended.
*** Bug 13100 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This bug was marked as P1 over 30 days ago, and still hasn't been RESOLVED. Editor: please RESOLVE it ASAP. NEEDSINFO and WONTFIX are valid resolutions for this part of the process. We simply want to get this bug to a state where we are prepared to accept change proposals should anybody be inclined to produce such.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Nothing Actionable Described Change Description: Zero Specification Changes Rationale: While I wholeheartedly agree that there is a serious issue with the W3C publishing two specifications that do effectively the same things for structured data in HTML, and I agree with much of what is said in the W3C TAG note to the HTML WG, the TAG provided no actionable information in their note to the group. I do not have a firm grasp on what changes could be made to the HTML5+RDFa specification to alleviate the TAG's concerns. We are re-evaluating changes that could be made to RDFa and Microdata currently as a result of the TAG note, and we are attempting to provide a set of options to the RDFa/Microdata Task Force when it forms, but no further guidance has been provided by the TAG since the note. We are waiting on them for something more actionable to be proposed. I have filed all of the bugs that I can think of against Microdata, some of those were implied in the TAG note. I have asked Ian, Henri, Philip J. and a few other WHATWG folks to do the same for RDFa in the past and we've discussed those issues at length in the RDFa Working Group and the RDF Web Apps Working Group. I feel that we have done all that we can. The TAG, or the RDFa/Microdata Task Force, will have to let us know of a further set of actionable items that will address the issues listed in the W3C TAG note. I am resolving this bug not because I believe that there isn't a problem, but because I am required to per the HTML WG bug processing policy and because there is nothing else that I can see that I can do as an editor.
mass-move component to LC1
For information: Proposed SWIG task forces on HTML Data, Web Schemas Tue, 20 Sep 2011 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0026.html In particular, the HTML Data Task Force: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Html-data-tf The task force MAY propose modifications in the form of bug reports and change proposals on the microdata and/or RDFa specifications, to help users to easily transition between the two syntaxes or use them together. As with all such comments, the ultimate decisions on implementing these will rest with the respective Working Groups.