Re: Request to publish HTML+RDFa (draft 3) as FPWD

On Sep 23, 2009, at 01:45, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Sep 21, 2009, at 11:55 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> I don't support the publication of HTML+RDFa as an FPWD in the HTML  
>> WG, because I think HTML WG deliverables shouldn't have such  
>> fundamental spec writing errors.
>
> Do you want this taken as an objection Call for Consensus on  
> publishing? If so, could you respond to my email asking for  
> objections, just to make it clear?

I intentionally said "I don't support" as opposed to "I object" to  
avoid filing a FO and merely to go on record not supporting the spec  
construction Shane said was being used (to pre-empt potential later  
appeals to unanimous silent sign-off to such construction).

> (Note: I don't think errors in the mechanics of sepc construction  
> constitute a very strong reason to object to FPWD; it would be a  
> good reason to object to to Last Call if not fixed by then. I think  
> it's not very hard to fix HTML+RDFa to consistently describe  
> operation in terms of an abstract tree model, and I expect this will  
> need to be done to get a draft the WG can agree on.)

I discussed the xmlns:foo issue space with Manu off-list, and I now  
trust that the draft will be further worked on using DOM/Infoset-based  
definitions as opposed to bits-on-the-wire definitions.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/