- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:04:47 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 04/08/2011 01:30 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 04/08/2011 05:56 AM, James Graham wrote: >> >> I thought that was the reason for *URIs*, not prefixes. > > The bug[1] was opened eighteen months ago. The issue[2] six months ago. > The call for proposals[3] was four months ago. The survey[4] was one > month ago. > > James, if your goal is to get this working group to repeat the same > discussions over and over, the job of the chairs is an easy one: we will > simply shut the discussion down. On 04/07/2011 02:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Like we have done with ISSUE-30, I would also encourage you to work with > those individuals that supported the prevailing Change Proposal to see > if you can obtain and address any objections that they may have with > this proposal. I believe that my post was in line with your request to work with others to address any objections they may have to a *new* change proposal based on what I consider *new* information. I concede that Kurt did not state an opinion in the original poll, but he is clearly a member of the wider RDFa community, so his input seems relevant. Note that the bulk of my email was concerned directly with the anticipated contents of the proposal. Am I to infer that I am expected to engage in this discussion, but I am expected to find some venue outside the working group to do so? If not, what is the correct inference?
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 12:05:50 UTC