Re: A proposal for establishing an RDFa IG

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Shane McCarron wrote:
>>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will 
>>> follow up... and resolve the issue.
>> Sure.  It was Ralph, Steven, Ben, and me.  We all agree that the 
>> current task force cannot produce rec-track documents that involve 
>> HTML because we are not chartered to work on HTML.  YOUR committee can 
>> certainly produce such documents.  Thanks for inviting us to work with 
>> your group and directly edit your spec.  I am sure some of us will 
>> take you up on that as time permits.
> 
> OK I think we are in sync.  I believe that "we were told and believed 
> that we could not produce such a document under the auspices of the W3C" 
> to be a false statement (though to see it as such requires thinking 
> outside of the box), and I accept that "the existing task force is under 
> the SemWeb and XHTML 2 Activities" was "not chartered to do so" (a.k.a. 
> "the box")

Oops: typo.  I did not intend my excerpt to include "we were told and 
believed that".

- Sam Ruby