W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: CfC: Publish HTML5, RDFa heartbeats and Microdata, 2D Context and H:TML as FPWDs

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:53:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4B77F240.90803@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
>> That sounds *technically* plausible, but... Do we really want to 
>> publish documents that have open issues attached to "Status of this 
>> Document"???
> 
> No, I am assuming there are substantive issues with parts of the spec, 
> and that expressing them as bugs (and, if necessary, issues) would 
> result in the proper status markers.

So yes or no then? Do you think it would be appropriate to have issue 
markers on the Status section for FPWD?

 > ...
>> If this text is OK for RDFa, why isn't it OK for Microdata? Could you 
>> please elaborate?
>>
>> We very clearly decided last month that Microdata and RDFa+in-HTML 
>> should have the same status. The Status section should reflect that. 
>> I'm not married to the exact wording, but I'd like to see consistency 
>> in both drafts.
> 
> Manu chose to use that wording after hearing people's feedback on the 
> status section. I don't think treating both drafts equally means we 
> should order Ian to change his status wording to be the same as what 
> Manu used, nor do I think we should order Manu to use the same wording 

What I'm asking for is that the W3C Team, which I was told is 
responsible for this Section, puts in equivalent text.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 12:54:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT