- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:55:01 +0300
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 19, 2009, at 15:34, Shelley Powers wrote: > 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? I don't think it necessarily will. But I thought that when Sam encouraged competitive drafts, the idea was that FPWD didn't mean that the WG was committed to 'doing' the subject matter of the draft. That is, both abandoning and going to REC are options to be gauged later than FPWD. Maybe I've misunderstood the point of commitment by consensus and the chairs can correct me. Or maybe I misunderstood what Julian meant by 'doing' and Julian can correct me. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 12:55:37 UTC