Re: Deprecating the old pubrules on Aug 1st, 2016

"Michael[tm] Smith" <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Jun 2016 02:00:52 +0900
Newsgroups	gmane.org.w3c.specifications
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Shane McCarron <[email protected]>, 2016-06-02 11:31 -0500:
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJdbnOA8Ey4wMZSRjtV1hHA3yKVrP=ofwc4kRm0rqSF4b3PNKQ@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > schema.org supports (and even promotes) the use of microdata, and many
> > authors and orgs are using it producively. I hope you’re not suggesting it
> > would be a good idea to start having the W3C HTML checker flag errors in
> > the millions of schema.org-conforming documents containing microdata that
> > authors have created based on the schema.org guidelines
> >
> Oh - personally I would be happy with that change as I think Microdata is
> pretty broken.

While I can understand very well might be happy with it personally, I doubt
the tens or hundreds of thousands of authors out there who are using it
productively and are getting the results from it that solve problems for
them would be happy about it in the way you are personally.

> But no, what I am asking is if the W3C profile that we use
> for validating W3C publications restricts the checking to things that are
> actually approved by the W3C.  W3C recommendations should not be using
> microdata - at least not in the primary format that we are checking as part
> of pub rules.

Are you aware of any that actually are? Are there any real-world actual
cases of that? And in the long list of problems that we’re here to try to
solve together, is this really one that you want to prioritize?

I work on the W3C HTML checker on my own dime, and on my own time, and your
partisan agitation about this seriously bums me out and de-motivates me
from feeling enthusiastic about working with you on getting other actual
real problems solved together.

But if you want me to flip the bit completely, go ahead and keep it up.

> I imagine there are lots of other things that are getting
> thrown into the WhatWG version of HTML that are also not included in HTML
> as Recommended by the W3C.

Yeah? You imagine? Maybe rather than imagining you could find specific cases
of that. Ones that are actually causing any real problems from anybody?

Or better yet, maybe you can use your imagination to think about actual
real problems to spend your time trying to help solve.

  —Mike

> We should not be permitting those in our formal
> publications either.

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)