Re: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

Ben Adida wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> I *was* talking about the HTML WG, and so were you when this discussion
>>> was initially brought up:
>>>
>>> "For better or worse, the HTML WG is operating under a CTR process."
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0063.html
>> I mispoke.
> 
> Ok, but the facts on the ground speak for themselves: micro-data was
> included in the spec without any attempt at consensus, and now it's
> about to go out as a working draft, again without any attempt at consensus.

I stopped reading your email at this point.

I believe that have been attempts at consensus and that you and 
everybody else in the working group has every opportunity to influence 
this.  As evidence, I will cite the following four emails:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0885.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0921.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0922.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0924.html

I will further state that the *ONLY* reason that the RDFa draft isn't 
going to be an option on Monday's poll is the following email:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0938.html

I suggest you take the time to read the emails I cited and to talk with 
Manu.

- Sam Ruby