- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:30:24 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > 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. I don't recall ever encouraging a "plurality", but as to the "idea" behind encouraging Camera-Ready Copy, I provide the following link: http://bitworking.org/news/Camera_Ready_Copy_and_the_Social_Denial_of_Service_Attack My experience is that groups have a natural desire and tendency to coalesce into a single document or a set of complementary documents. This tendency does not need to be reinforced or institutionalized. > 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). A decision[1] was made to publish a WD including Microdata. More than ample time was given for everybody to object, and in fact a number of objections were raised and dealt with. While no formal assessment of consensus or final decisions on packaging (same spec, split specs) were made, as far as the content goes, the WG made decisions to publish both Microdata and RDFa as WDs. > BR, Julian - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2009JulSep/0024.html
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 17:31:31 UTC