13100 2011-06-30 16:32:19 +0000 TAG issue on HTML+RDFa and Microdata last call drafts 2011-10-11 18:07:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML Microdata (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other All RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.w3.org/mid/4E04A795.5020609@arcanedomain.com P1 normal --- 13101 1 mike+html-wg-mailbot contributor a.kuckartz ayg contributor eoconnor gregg ian jeni julian.reschke lin.w.clark mike mjs msporny nrm Paul.Cotton peter.linss philipj plh public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 50500 0 mike+html-wg-mailbot 2011-06-30 16:32:19 +0000 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/ 50615 1 Paul.Cotton 2011-07-03 16:02:10 +0000 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 50829 2 ian 2011-07-08 00:14:14 +0000 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: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Language design by committee is not a way to design a language. If you have specific concerns, please file them as individual bugs. 50838 3 a.kuckartz 2011-07-08 13:55:05 +0000 Status "RESOLVED WONTFIX" is not acceptable in this stage of the discussion. Do not use this issue tracker to sabotage the discussion. 50839 4 a.kuckartz 2011-07-08 14:03:41 +0000 Discussion is going on in bug 13101. Therefore closing this one again, this time as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 13101 *** 50841 5 msporny 2011-07-08 14:08:55 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Discussion is going on in bug 13101. Therefore closing this one again, this > time as duplicate. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 13101 *** Andreas - I don't think this is a dupe. There were two bugs filed - one for HTML5+Microdata and another for HTML5+RDFa. The one that Hixie closed was for HTML5+Microdata, for which he is the editor. I don't feign to know how the HTML WG is going to manage this issue - but it seems reasonable to have two bugs filed at the moment. That said, I'm not going to touch the status of the bug. 50842 6 julian.reschke 2011-07-08 14:14:06 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Discussion is going on in bug 13101. Therefore closing this one again, this > > time as duplicate. > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 13101 *** > > Andreas - I don't think this is a dupe. There were two bugs filed - one for > HTML5+Microdata and another for HTML5+RDFa. The one that Hixie closed was for > HTML5+Microdata, for which he is the editor. I don't feign to know how the HTML > WG is going to manage this issue - but it seems reasonable to have two bugs > filed at the moment. That said, I'm not going to touch the status of the bug. I was present in the telco where we decided these are two distinct bugs. Thus re-opening for now. (Ian, if you feel like it, RESOLVE it again; although I disagree with that...) 50850 7 ayg 2011-07-08 21:50:35 +0000 Why is this assigned to Ian anyway? It's not actionable at this point, unless you expect him to set up the committee himself. If there's going to be a committee for some reason -- I'm not sure what purpose that would serve, as opposed to just discussing it normally -- the committee should file bugs when it reaches conclusions to be implemented. 50856 8 nrm 2011-07-09 00:09:46 +0000 > It's not actionable at this point, unless > you expect him to set up the committee himself. I don't think the TAG's intention was that a W3C-organized committee be the only source of creative thought about this problem. We have opened an issue against specifications published by the HTML WG, and I think it would be entirely appropriate for the HTML WG, either on its own or working with others, to consider and propose possible resolutions to the concerns raised. 51108 9 Ms2ger 2011-07-15 13:31:29 +0000 *** Bug 12901 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 51195 10 mjs 2011-07-18 09:31:21 +0000 It's completely acceptable, per WG process, for the Editor to resolve this bug, including possibly as WONTFIX. At that point, other parties can choose to escalate. Quoting from the Editor's Response that Ian gave: > 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 Note: this bug is a P1, therefore per our process has to resolved within 30 days. Additional note: it seems to me this bug does not have enough specific information to be actionable, therefore it would be wholly appropriate to resolve it as WONTFIX. 51236 11 ayg 2011-07-18 18:41:37 +0000 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: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: As far as I can tell, nothing described in this bug is specific enough to be actionable. It does not request that any specific changes be made to the microdata specification. If the TAG or any other party would like to set up a committee to make recommendations, it is free to do so. If a committee is eventually formed and does develop specific recommendations, it can file them as individual bugs like any other feedback. 52947 12 mike 2011-08-04 05:05:31 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 58067 13 plh 2011-10-11 18:07:21 +0000 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.