- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:41:49 -0600
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > The original issue ended up being split into multiple actions, and > deliverables, probably it was too encompassing. The issue of RDFa in > HTML was decided by publishing RDFa-in-HTML in a separate draft. There > was no counter-proposal in regards to this split, and there was no > real quibble, other than some folks had some suggestions and edits. > > This counter-proposal was based on a proposal[1] that specifically was > focused on whether RDFa and Microdata should be included within the > HTML5 specification. The RDFa folks removed RDFa from the equation by > publishing RDFa-in-HTML separately. And no one objected to this > happening, so I think you would need chair approval to open up the > discussion whether to re-include RDFa in the HTML5 specification. > > So that's the RDFa part. This leaves only the second part to the > change proposal: whether Microdata should be contained within the > HTML5 or, itself, split out into a separate spec. > > We need to focus, rather than bring up past decisions and actions. We > need to focus if we want to have any chance of closing these issues. > The only open item right now with Issue 76, as far as I know, is what > to do with Microdata. Chairs, am I incorrect in this? This all sidesteps what I said in my email. The current Issue 76 Change Proposal from Manu explicitly refers to RDFa and uses it in its arguments. Thus any discussion around counter-proposals implicitly needs to discuss RDFa as well. I do not feel it would be appropriate to ignore large swathes of Manu's original Change Proposal without his consent; he may feel it is very worthwhile to pursue some of those argument-lines. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 14:42:24 UTC