Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

* 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/