- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:53:27 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, swick@w3.org
* Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> [2005-05-18 22:22+0200] > > * Dan Brickley wrote: > >My top wishlist there would be seeing progress on GRDDL-happy > >XSLTs for the new RDF/A notation in XHTML2 (and maybe used in > >other XHTML doc types, even SVG etc), > > Note that the SVG Working Group rejected the request to include XHTML > 2.0's meta data module, http://www.w3.org/2005/04/Tiny12DoC.html#T015, > and the HTML Working Group has been asked to reject "RDF/A". I am not > sure there is a point in keeping "RDF/A" on the agenda. Could you cite a reference to that last point? And elaborate, perhaps? Since when does everyone who asks the HTML WG for something get their wish? (eg. I'd like to see the Imagemap part swapped out for an SVG-based approach...). Is it your expectation that the HTML WG have decided to drop RDF/A? Is this minuted anywhere? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 20:56:44 UTC