- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:34:45 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > 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. Your response was to Julian, but I want to jump in on this one: What makes you think that this will be abandoned at some future time? Manu didn't do all that work for a giggle. And there is a significant amount of support for the document. But again, a reminder: this topic thread has nothing to do with the RDFa document. It has to do with keeping Microdata in the HTML5 spec, or splitting it 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. > It's true that if Microdata is split into a separate document, it may not do more than end up as a note. But I'm assuming if there's enough interest in Microdata, it should survive to be released. I have no intention of fighting its release. I'm a big believer that the world is full of wondrous variety, and not everyone has the same needs I have. I believe in being flexible. > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > Shelley >
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:35:13 UTC