RDFA-SPEC-SECTIONS [status-of-this-document]

What's the actionable feedback in this bug? Are you proposing some change to the HTML+RDFa spec?

This bug is here to ensure that Larry's feedback about the SotD for HTML+RDFa is preserved and displayed to the reader of the HTML+RDFa spec.

There are two possible things that I can see that would clear this bug:

1. The HTML WG commits to publishing HTML+RDFa as a REC by changing its charter.
2. The HTML WG defers development and publishing HTML+RDFa as a REC to the RDFa WG, which would have to change its charter.
3. Some combination of #1 and #2.

There may be other ways to clear this bug, but if not, the two items above seem actionable to me. Thoughts?

(In reply to comment #3)
> This bug is here to ensure that Larry's feedback about the SotD for HTML+RDFa
> is preserved and displayed to the reader of the HTML+RDFa spec.

The goal of bugs is not "preserv[ing] and display[ing] feedback", it's recording problems with a draft and resulting requests to change it.

> 
> There are two possible things that I can see that would clear this bug:
> 
> 1. The HTML WG commits to publishing HTML+RDFa as a REC by changing its
> charter.
> 2. The HTML WG defers development and publishing HTML+RDFa as a REC to the RDFa
> WG, which would have to change its charter.
> 3. Some combination of #1 and #2.
> 
> There may be other ways to clear this bug, but if not, the two items above seem
> actionable to me. Thoughts?
> 

How would any of these actions prevent there being "one or more alternate methods of adding data without using RDFa"? If seems like if we did those things, it would have absolutely no effect on whether there are alternate methods.

I can't see any change that would remove that concern other than deleting RDFA, or deleting Microdata (but the latter would be a bug on Microdata, not on RDFa).

Personally, I don't see how using the bug report system is helpful to resolve this kind of architectural and scope concern.

In any case, I think the hope of the W3C AC at the time the charter was written was that HTML would add an extensibility mechanism so that RDFa and Microdata could compete in the market, not to add either to HTML.

I was expecting that Larry would use this bug and escalate it in some way to become a full fledged HTML WG issue per the HTML WG bug/issue escalation process.

Marking it as RESOLVED INVALID or CLOSED is going to ensure that it doesn't show up in the next SotD section for the HTML+RDFa draft. Larry, are you sure you want me to Mark this bug as CLOSED?

(In reply to comment #6)
> I was expecting that Larry would use this bug and escalate it in some way to
> become a full fledged HTML WG issue per the HTML WG bug/issue escalation
> process.
> 
> Marking it as RESOLVED INVALID or CLOSED is going to ensure that it doesn't
> show up in the next SotD section for the HTML+RDFa draft. Larry, are you sure
> you want me to Mark this bug as CLOSED?
> 

If it's RESOLVED, it can be escalated to an issue if anyone (including either Larry or you) chooses. Does HTML+RDFa not have a way to add markers based on the issue tracker?

(In reply to comment #7)
> Does HTML+RDFa not have a way to add markers based on the issue tracker?

At the moment, no.

AFAIK, I can't use Anolis to do this as it assumes that it is annotating the HTML5 spec... or rather, the issue annotations are specific to the HTML5 specification, not the HTML+RDFa specification.

It should be fairly trivial to extend the specbugs tool that I wrote last night to integrate the HTML WG issues... the only problem is finding the time to do it.

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Does HTML+RDFa not have a way to add markers based on the issue tracker?
> 
> At the moment, no.
> 
> AFAIK, I can't use Anolis to do this as it assumes that it is annotating the
> HTML5 spec... or rather, the issue annotations are specific to the HTML5
> specification, not the HTML+RDFa specification.
> 
> It should be fairly trivial to extend the specbugs tool that I wrote last night
> to integrate the HTML WG issues... the only problem is finding the time to do
> it.
> 

I see. The Chairs are not going to rush publication if it's a matter of finding some time to improve the annotation tool. I suspect James Graham would be willing to help if you ask him.

(In reply to comment #9)
> I see. The Chairs are not going to rush publication if it's a matter of finding
> some time to improve the annotation tool. I suspect James Graham would be
> willing to help if you ask him.

I'll speak with James Graham at some point in the near future, then.

There is only one ISSUE that I know of that affects RDFa and that's ISSUE-41. Bug #9011 is a placeholder for ISSUE-41, so the draft shouldn't be held up because we can't annotate issues in HTML+RDFa yet. I'm completely slammed for the next four weeks and the HTML+RDFa heartbeat has been ready to be published for over a month... please, please, please publish the HTML+RDFa draft as-is.

This should probably have the boilerplate for an Editor's Response added to it.

mass-move component to LC1