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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:48:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9F0423.4090301@intertwingly.net>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 04/08/2011 08:04 AM, James Graham wrote:
> 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?

The inference that you should draw is that your request to reopen this 
decision on the basis for new information has not yet been evaluated.

I ask you to give us a few days to evaluate the request that you have 
made.  Meanwhile I am willing to state that the fact that you "thought 
that was the reason for *URIs*, not prefixes" does not meet that bar.

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  Kurt not responding to the survey is a non-issue.  From the poll 
"If you feel that your objection is already fully expressed by someone 
else, or by the Change Proposal documents, then it is not necessary to 
repeat it."
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 12:49:05 GMT

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