W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:04:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9EF9DF.7030801@opera.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT