- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 23:35:10 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, swick@w3.org
* Dan Brickley wrote: >> 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? You can find comments on XHTML 2.0's meta data module and RDF/A in the public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf and www-html(-editor) archives; I would not be surprised if the HTML Working Group decides to reject the SWBPD's re- quest to adopt RDF/A but I am unaware of publicly available information to this effect. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 21:36:35 UTC