W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2010

Re: The next HTML+RDFa Heartbeat

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:33 +0000
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1733445717.69259.1270026479505.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
"Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> The only reason we are decoupling HTML+RDFa LC from HTML5 LC is in
> the
> case that there is some significant last-minute change to HTML5 that
> requires the RDFa WG to go back and rework HTML+RDFa.

You seem to writing as though the RDFa WG were developing HTML+RDFa if it's the WG to potentially "rework" it.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670#c43 says "So, any changes made to RDFa Core 1.1 will be applied to HTML+RDFa.", which seems to mean that HTML+RDFa is so constrained by the output of the RDFa WG that there isn't anything for the HTML WG to do except to rubber-stamp it. (After all, bug 7670 is about one of the central concerns raised about RDFa in the HTML WG.)

What's the point of making HTML+RDFa nominally a deliverable of the HTML WG or making SVG+RDFa nominally a deliverable of the SVG WG if RDFa Core is fully(?) constraining what these specs can say? Why aren't HTML+RDFa and SVG+RDFa direct deliverables of the RDFa WG if the RDFa WG is de facto defining the normative constraints on the specs?

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




Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 15:59:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT