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

Re: status of RDF/A

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:31:01 -0400
Message-Id: <044603de6af33daa5e9567e2514c1139@mit.edu>
Cc: "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org>, "Daniel Weitzner" <djweitzner@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
To: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>


Steven,

I think one of the issues that had some people worried was the lack of 
any public document from the HTML WG concerning the RDF/A-like approach 
to metadata. With the publication of your new working draft, most, if 
not all, of these worries go away.

And, it goes without saying, congratulations on this new working draft!

-Ben

On May 31, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Steven Pemberton wrote:

> On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:10:31 +0200, Daniel Weitzner 
> <djweitzner@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> I do appreciate the work that you and Mark Birbeck have been doing on 
>> the task force, but we're still missing, afaik, a clear yes/no, 
>> hate-it/love-it, need more info indication from the HTML WG.
>
> Danny, although we had a phone call last week where we discussed this, 
> for the record when I mentioned this to the HTML WG last week, they 
> laughed and said "but it's *our* proposal!"
>
> The resolution I referred to was the resolution of the WG to adopt the 
> approach and suggest it to the SemWeb community. I don't see what more 
> clarity you can wish for!
>
>> I think that much of the source of confusion here is the rather long 
>> gap in publication of public working drafts from the HTML WG.  If we 
>> could all see drafts of the WG's work and current state of consensus, 
>> then the RDF-in-xHTML-TF would be able to understand the current 
>> state of mind w.r.t this issue.
>
> Well, I posted the URL of a draft sometime back to the TF[1] and got 
> no remarks, so assumed that the TF was happy with what there was, and 
> we could carry on with the one remaining issue of bnodes. I believe 
> that that is correct W3C protocol.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/04/05-swbp-minutes.html#item01
>
>> As it is, we're going on tea leaves, old resolutions, etc. This makes 
>> collaboration difficult.
>
> Resolutions don't time out; you only have to make them once. If we 
> publish a draft and no one comments, and then someone complains that 
> they don't know what the status is, then someone isn't paying enough 
> attention :-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Steven
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 13:31:06 GMT

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