- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:53:54 +0100
- To: "Tom Morris" <tom@tommorris.org>, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: "HTMLWG List" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:52:39 +0100, Tom Morris <tom@tommorris.org> wrote: > On Jan 7, 2008 12:25 AM, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: >> Le 6 janv. 2008 à 16:55, Tom Morris a écrit : >> > The HTML WG, in it's wisdom, have decided that web authors do not >> > need any kind >> > of RDF-in-HTML solution, >> >> not true. The HTML WG didn't make this decision. >> > > Well, they haven't explicitly made that decision, but since attempts to > include either GRDDL (via the head/@profile attribute) or RDFa seem to > fall on 'pragmatically deaf' ears, it seems like a reasonable inference. Not really. A more reasonable conclusion is that the process of decision-making in the HTML-WG is generally glacial, although fortunately there have been a few cases where it moves as fast as snail's pace - so for example there are real issues that show no sign of being resolved by the group within a year of the editor making a "pro tempore" decision that the group may or may not overturn, but there will at least be a specification draft after only 9 months. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 13:53:47 UTC