- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:02:17 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen 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. > > 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. The point I'm trying to make is that this WG made a decision to work on RDFa, and publish it as FPWD, but, unless I'm missing something, did *not* do that for Microdata (which was suddenly dropped into the spec, and which has been controversial since). BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 16:02:56 UTC