W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Documents not in scope for HTML-WG

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:16:43 -0800
To: "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D737146@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
None of RDFa, Microdata  or 2D Context, are in scope for the current HTML working group charter.

I suggested a compromise, which was that the working group might publishing these as Working Drafts (whether FPWD or Heartbeat) if the Status was very clear that these weren't necessarily work items of the HTML working group, and there was no commitment to move them forward in HTML-WG.

This compromise was scuttled, in a pretty back-handed way.

I read that the chairs are responsible for keeping working groups in scope (i.e., it isn't a working group decision).

So I object to the chairs' decision that these documents are in scope.

 I suppose a formal objection is decided by the domain lead, or appealed to the Director, and the team contact can help with this process? it's not in the special HTML-WG-only process document how this group goes about appealing decisions which the chairs seem to have made.

If I need to use the word "formally" in there somewhere, or if there's some "Formal Appeal Change Proposal" form I'm supposed to fill in, recapitulating all of the email arguments made to date, suggesting the documents "change" by disappearing, and written in iambic hexameter, please let me know.

Thanks!


Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 16:17:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT