- From: scott lewis <scotfl@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:57:07 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Monday, October 19, 2009, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 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. > > > 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). There was no decision to publish HTML5+RDFa, only a call for lazy consensus. Lazy consensus is simply a call for objections -- not a gauge of support. Absence of opposition does not imply presence of support. As I understood the chair's proposal, the WG is to be liberal in what working drafts we publish, but conservative on the drafts we move further down the standards track. I may be wrong in that interpretation, however. sfl.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 17:41:26 UTC