w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Microdata Note vs Recommendation Track Preference Survey
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: pcotton@microsoft.com, rubys@intertwingly.net, mjs@apple.com, mike@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2013-01-16 to 2013-01-24.
36 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
1. Should HTML Microdata continue on the Recommendation track?
HTML WG has not reached consensus on whether the Microdata specification should continue to progress on the Recommendation Track or if the Working Group should end work by publishing a Working Group Note. This Preference Survey results from discussions on bug 20082. This bug has not been resolved and it is considered that further discussion in bugzilla will not result in the bug being resolved.
Clearly, we do not have unanimity on how to proceed. Rationales have been provided for both positions:
- Rationale statement in favor of keeping HTML Microdata on the Recommendation track.
- Rationale statement in favor of ending work on HTML Microdata and publishing the result as a Working Group Note.
At this point, per the Decision Policy, we are proceeding using this survey to give Working Group participants a final opportunity to express their preference.
Since this is a process, not a technical decision, the survey is by individual not organization. Simple majority wins.
Please read the rationale statements carefully before responding.
A yes answer indicates you would like HTML Microdata to continue on the Recommendation Track.
A no answer indicates that you would like to see work on HTML Microdata ended at this time and for the results to be published as a Working Group Note.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 32 |
| no | 4 |
| concur | |
| abstain |
Details
| Responder | Should HTML Microdata continue on the Recommendation track? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Sam Ruby | yes | |
| Steve Faulkner | yes | |
| Julian Reschke | no | Keeping both on the REC track doesn't help developers who are hesitant to add metadata because of the uncertainty which to pick. Yes, the W3C should take a position here. |
| John Vernaleo | no | |
| Dominik Tomaszuk | no | |
| Channy Yun | yes | I think its recommendation will help developer's behavior of the semantic markup. |
| Simon Myers | yes | Microdata is in use on websites. So there should be a live spec for it, to keep the web interoperable. Picking between competing technologies is something that'll be decided by the market, not a committee. |
| Graham Klyne | no | Contrary to some claims made, I don't see this vote as requiring that work on microdata be stopped or "tombstoned". I view publication of a note as a reasonable option for creating a documented technical spec for which current consensus to progress may be lacking, but which allows the work to be further developed to a formal recommendation if the "market" subsequently demonstrates a clear desire to do so. Meanwhile, I think it preferable to focus available effort on RDFa which, though its basis in the RDF abstract model, connects to a wider range of possible uses than Microdata. The increased complexity of the RDFa processing model w.r.t. Microdata is a concern, but given the overall complexity of modern browser platforms, and wide availability of support libraries for other platforms, I feel this is not sufficient to outweigh the advantages of wider exchangeability of encoded data. |
| Bryan Sullivan | yes | While two specs for the same purpose is not an optimal approach, the market has experience with that situation, and the web and W3C keeps growing nonetheless. Given that Microdata has good implementer support, I think it's better to let the market decide what tech best meets its needs in the long run. It may still be both. |
| Lee Kowalkowski | yes | If it is common-practice 'in the wild', then it's better to have an official specification for it sooner, rather than later, no? |
| Theresa O'Connor | yes | It's shipping in UAs; let's drive those implementations toward interop. |
| Eric Carlson | yes | |
| David Singer | yes | The hypothesis in the bug -- that the W3C should never publish specs with overlapping applicability -- is unsubstantiated. Microdata and RDF specs and implementations can co-exist. Microdata is mature enough for publication, and significant enough to be appropriate under the rigor and benefits of the Rec. track. |
| Tab Atkins Jr. | yes | Moving a specification that is implemented in browsers to the Note track for political reasons is, to put it lightly, stupid. It also flies directly in the face of the very reasoning that was employed to get *RDFa in HTML* on the spec track. |
| Masataka Yakura | yes | |
| Jens Oliver Meiert | yes | |
| Tantek Çelik | yes | I support specifying multiple approaches (where people feel compelled to do the work to do so) and letting web authors decide. For that matter, I would also support an "HTML microformats" specification proceeding along Recommendation track as well. W3C has a history of allowing multiple solutions to a problem to proceed, and each has a tendency to help improve the other (e.g.: CSS and XSLFO, Selectors and XPath). microformats/microdata/RDFa have had a positive co-evolutionary (often complementary) relationship, and I expect to see that continue. |
| Philippe Le Hegaret | yes | |
| Michael[tm] Smith | yes | |
| Robin Berjon | yes | |
| Glenn Adams | yes | |
| Marcos Caceres | yes | |
| Adrian Bateman | yes | This spec includes technology that is incorporated into various products and web sites and should benefit from the W3C Patent Policy by becoming a W3C Recommendation (which doesn't apply to a Note). Having multiple alternatives and letting the market decide which technology is suitable for what doesn't seem like a problem (HTML vs. XHTML, JPG vs. PNG, etc.). Sometimes alternatives are better for some scenarios than others, sometimes it's a matter of taste. |
| James Graham | yes | |
| Henri Sivonen | yes | |
| Leif Halvard Silli | yes | |
| Matthew Turvey | yes | |
| Yang Sun | yes | |
| Travis Leithead | yes | |
| Eliot Graff | yes | |
| Jay Munro | yes | |
| Tony Ross | yes | |
| Arthur Barstow | yes | |
| Erika Doyle Navara | yes | |
| Jason Kiss | yes | |
| Chaals Nevile | yes | It is not clear that Microdata should become a Recommendation, although it currently has wide usage (we collect "a lot" of it in our web index). But it makes sense for it to continue through Candidate Recommendation, to determine whether the spec is sufficiently well written to be interoperably implemented, whatever the final outcome. |
More details on responses
- Sam Ruby: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:02 (UTC)
- Steve Faulkner: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:05 (UTC)
- Julian Reschke: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:11 (UTC)
- John Vernaleo: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:22 (UTC)
- Dominik Tomaszuk: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:42 (UTC)
- Channy Yun: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:48 (UTC)
- Simon Myers: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:52 (UTC)
- Graham Klyne: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 15:57 (UTC)
- Bryan Sullivan: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 16:04 (UTC)
- Lee Kowalkowski: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 16:12 (UTC)
- Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 18:37 (UTC)
- Eric Carlson: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 18:48 (UTC)
- David Singer: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 18:54 (UTC)
- Tab Atkins Jr.: last responded on 16, January 2013 at 19:11 (UTC)
- Masataka Yakura: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 00:42 (UTC)
- Jens Oliver Meiert: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 01:04 (UTC)
- Tantek Çelik: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 03:34 (UTC)
- Philippe Le Hegaret: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 14:40 (UTC)
- Michael[tm] Smith: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 14:55 (UTC)
- Robin Berjon: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 17:00 (UTC)
- Glenn Adams: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 17:10 (UTC)
- Marcos Caceres: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 17:27 (UTC)
- Adrian Bateman: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 17:31 (UTC)
- James Graham: last responded on 17, January 2013 at 19:55 (UTC)
- Henri Sivonen: last responded on 18, January 2013 at 12:55 (UTC)
- Leif Halvard Silli: last responded on 19, January 2013 at 13:42 (UTC)
- Matthew Turvey: last responded on 19, January 2013 at 17:00 (UTC)
- Yang Sun: last responded on 21, January 2013 at 04:02 (UTC)
- Travis Leithead: last responded on 21, January 2013 at 16:11 (UTC)
- Eliot Graff: last responded on 22, January 2013 at 16:16 (UTC)
- Jay Munro: last responded on 22, January 2013 at 16:40 (UTC)
- Tony Ross: last responded on 22, January 2013 at 17:32 (UTC)
- Arthur Barstow: last responded on 22, January 2013 at 20:41 (UTC)
- Erika Doyle Navara: last responded on 22, January 2013 at 22:17 (UTC)
- Jason Kiss: last responded on 24, January 2013 at 01:46 (UTC)
- Chaals Nevile: last responded on 24, January 2013 at 14:12 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project