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

Purely admin issue (Re: The next HTML+RDFa Heartbeat)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:12:19 +0200
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <51D55A9B-47C4-4297-92E0-36519B78C49D@w3.org>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
This has been a long thread with cross-mailing lists usage. This also included the rdfa working group mailing list and, I presume, many who have sent a mail are not subscribed to that list. As a consequence, some of the mails ended up on the moderator's (ie mine) mailbox waiting for the original submitters to go through the unfortunate-but-necessary anti-spam measures. I decided to redirect all the hold up mails to the public-rdfa-wg list manually which, though messed up the threads slightly, made at least the thread complete for those who read only one of the mailing lists...

Ivan

On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:08 , Henri Sivonen wrote:

> "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/
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 16:11:08 GMT

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