- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:52:54 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > A few comments inline. > > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > ... >> Rationale >> --------- >> >> * All good specs which integrate with HTML5 should, ideally, be a part >> of HTML5. Inclusiveness promotes greater attention to each part, and >> ensures that the language evolves in directions which are most >> helpful. A spec which is separate from HTML5 may find the easiest way >> to resolve difficulties is to route around them, rather than altering >> or extending the HTML language itself, which may be the best option >> overall. >> ... > > I don't think this position has consensus even among those who want to > keep Microdata in the spec. It's simply impracticable. As a general point, I assume there is no requirement that a change proposal represents only consensus opinions amongst those who agree with the overall change. Such a requirement would seem to be untenable since part of the function of a change proposal is to help people decide whether or not they agree with a particular change. It would also make writing a change proposal unreasonably difficult since, hard as it is to get people to agree on conclusions, it is significantly harder to get them to agree on how to reach the conclusions (e.g. I can agree that inventing a new element rather than reusing <dt>/<dd> would be an acceptable change to the spec. However I disagree with large chunks of the reasoning in the change proposal suggesting the <fltcap> element be introduced)
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 11:53:42 UTC