W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: A proposal for establishing an RDFa IG

From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:19:54 -0700
Message-ID: <3b31caf90907081019q4a09f1a6s6b408a5ec9663ff7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Sam,

You encouraged the RDFa-in-HTML effort to take place under the HTML WG:

> Before I agree, let me give my perspective. People are going to use
> RDFa in HTML, and as such I feel that such usage should be documented,
> test suites set up, and libraries made to interoperate, yadda, yadda,
> yadda.
[...]
> If you see an IG as potentially one that exclusively gives
> "advice"[...]and if such is entirely separate from the HTML WG[...
> such] activity won't have my full attention.
>
> Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how
> anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG
> and RDFa in HTML is not. As such, if there is interest in working on
> such a document, then I will do my part to enable those who wish to do
> so have direct access to CVS, etc.

(Personally, I agree that the HTML WG is a sensible home for any
RDFa-in-HTML spec effort.)

But you went on to say to Manu that he is "welcome to work with the
WHATWG, but there is no requirement that you do so."

That's strictly speaking true, assuming the RDFa-in-HTML effort remains
outside the purview of the HMTL WG but, were the WG to take on the
RDFa-in-HTML effort, working with the WHATWG would be required. Our
charter requires us to "actively pursue convergence with WHATWG[...]"

Just trying to make sure Manu et al. are aware of this charter
requirement, for when deciding how/where to proceed with their work.


-- 
Edward O'Connor
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 17:21:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 July 2009 17:21:05 GMT