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

"Reject RDF/A" [was: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:45:17 -0500
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, swick@w3.org
Message-Id: <1116456317.3429.117.camel@localhost>

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 16:53 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> * Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> [2005-05-18 22:22+0200]
> > 
> > * Dan Brickley wrote:
> > >My top wishlist there would be seeing progress on GRDDL-happy
> > >XSLTs for the new RDF/A notation in XHTML2 (and maybe used in
> > >other XHTML doc types, even SVG etc),
> > 
> > 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?

It was Bjoern that asked... ages ago...

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:24:07 +0100
To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <41c26a21.619237406@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

I haven't seen a reply from the HTML WG either.

>  And elaborate, perhaps?
> Since when does everyone who asks the HTML WG for something get their 
> wish?

Well, I'd like to see a reply either way.

>  (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?
> Dan
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
see you at XTech in Amsterdam 24-27 May?
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 22:45:25 GMT

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