Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

On May 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html is last updated two years
> ago, again discussing essentially non-issues like backwards-compati-
> bility, character entities, validation, etc. The current dominant
> position that "The RDF MUST NOT have to be reformatted from RDF/XML"
> is interesting though, clearly RDF/A fails to meet that requirement
> (and some others) ...

That document was updated a long time ago, though the links apparently 
were not. That's my fault. Here's the most current version:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2004-10-12-tf.html

However, your approach in this discussion seems disingenuous. All of 
these issues have been *publicly* discussed in our forums many times. 
None of this is new. The reasons here have been clear for a while.

I'm going to have to agree with Mark here: you're not going to be 
convinced. You're opposed to the goal and thus to the solution. That's 
fine, but we have an important charter here that we need to fulfill.

-Ben