W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: Need feedback on splitting Microdata into separate specification

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:55:01 +0300
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4B27407A-8698-4DBE-8BB0-4E30744F7E77@iki.fi>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
On Oct 19, 2009, at 15:34, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  
> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2009, at 22:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>> For now, there seems to be lazy consensus for doing RDFa (we have  
>>> a FPWD),
>>
>> If this is how FPWD is interpreted even within the WG, maybe the  
>> idea of
>> taking on multiple FPWDs some of which may get abandoned as  
>> tombstone Notes
>> isn't working out.
>
> Your response was to Julian, but I want to jump in on this one:
>
> What makes you think that this will be abandoned at some future time?

I don't think it necessarily will. But I thought that when Sam  
encouraged competitive drafts, the idea was that FPWD didn't mean that  
the WG was committed to 'doing' the subject matter of the draft. That  
is, both abandoning and going to REC are options to be gauged later  
than FPWD.

Maybe I've misunderstood the point of commitment by consensus and the  
chairs can correct me. Or maybe I misunderstood what Julian meant by  
'doing' and Julian can correct me.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC