- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:08:22 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mjs@apple.com
--- Comment #21 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2009-09-19 22:08:22 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
>
> The XHTML2 WG is (or will be) history, and our *chairs* have invited the RDFa
> people to publish the HTML+RDFa spec over here. If you're unhappy with that,
> you really should discuss this directly with the chairs.
>
We've asked the RDFa Task Force to present an HTML+RDFa spec for review, and
we're now calling for consensus to publish it as a First Public Working Draft.
We have not asked HTML WG members to hold off on giving feedback on the spec.
Indeed, if anyone has issues that would lead them to oppose moving to Last Call
in the future, then we would prefer to hear about these issues sooner rather
than later.
It may be that "big picture" issues like this one cannot easily be resolved,
since there may be a direct conflict with compatibility goals. But let's not
rule that out up front. It's possible there may be spec changes that would let
authors avoid dealing with prefix binding indirection. For example, it could
give a list of predefined prefixes, since it seems popular RDFa consumers take
this approach anyway, so this would be compatible with deployed content. (I'm
not necessarily saying this is the best approach, just an example.)
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 19 September 2009 22:08:32 UTC