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

Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 23:35:10 +0200
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, swick@w3.org
Message-ID: <42b7acc5.81011390@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 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?

You can find comments on XHTML 2.0's meta data module and RDF/A in the
public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf and www-html(-editor) archives; I would not be
surprised if the HTML Working Group decides to reject the SWBPD's re-
quest to adopt RDF/A but I am unaware of publicly available information
to this effect.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 21:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:19 UTC