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

Henri Sivonen 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.
> 
> At least I thought that when Sam encouraged a plurality of competing 
> drafts the idea was to gauge which ones the WG ends up actually 'doing' 
> some time after FPWD.

The point I'm trying to make is that this WG made a decision to work on 
RDFa, and publish it as FPWD, but, unless I'm missing something, did 
*not* do that for Microdata (which was suddenly dropped into the spec, 
and which has been controversial since).

BR, Julian