- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:15:34 +0300
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 18, 2009, at 22:20, Julian Reschke wrote: > For now, there seems to be lazy consensus for doing RDFa (we have a > FPWD), If this is how FPWD is interpreted even within the WG, maybe the idea of taking on multiple FPWDs some of which may get abandoned as tombstone Notes isn't working out. At least I thought that when Sam encouraged a plurality of competing drafts the idea was to gauge which ones the WG ends up actually 'doing' some time after FPWD. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:16:12 UTC