- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:07:52 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 19, 2009, at 5:15 AM, 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. Since I posted the CfC I'd like to clarify what I think we agreed to: - The HTML Working Group agreed to publish RDFa in HTML as a First Public Working Draft. - This implies a commitment to continue engaging in the review of the spec, and to eventually either progress it along the REC track, or retire it as a WG Note. - This does not imply any endorsement of the contents of the draft on a technical level, or endorsement of RDFa as a technology. Indeed, several people who supported FPWD (or at least did not object) made very clear that they do not endorse the technology and may not support the draft progressing on the W3C REC track. In other words, we allowed RDFa-in-HTML work to proceed here, but did not decide a final outcome, or endorse the technology as a group. I also agree with Sam that Microdata is in the same boat, by virtue of being published as a Working Draft. Again, our commitment there is to review the technology and either progress it or retire it. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 02:08:28 UTC