W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2005

Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:11:20 -0400
Message-Id: <bab7d310442af248c9873473e6a24597@mit.edu>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, 'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force'' <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>


On May 18, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> * Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> [2005-05-18 22:22+0200]
>>
>> Note that the SVG Working Group rejected the request to include XHTML
>> 2.0's meta data module, http://www.w3.org/2005/04/Tiny12DoC.html#T015,
>> and the HTML Working Group has been asked to reject "RDF/A". I am not
>> sure there is a point in keeping "RDF/A" on the agenda.
>
> Could you cite a reference to that last point? And elaborate, perhaps?
> Since when does everyone who asks the HTML WG for something get their
> wish? (eg. I'd like to see the Imagemap part swapped out for an
> SVG-based approach...). Is it your expectation that the HTML WG have
> decided to drop RDF/A? Is this minuted anywhere?

I'd like to second Dan's request for information on this and stress  
that the current situation, according to our last task force minutes,  
is quite far from what you describe:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005May/ 
0004.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Apr/ 
0020.html

Is this speculation, or is there meat to this claim?

-Ben
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 21:15:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT