- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:07:42 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:45:37 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> I already have objected to re-publish these sections as part of the >> Microdata spec, see >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0042.html>. >> In particular, I'd like to see a statement from the editor about >> whether this is intentional, or just an oversight (potentially caused >> by the way the specs are generated). > > I'm not the editor, but I know this is intentional. Thanks for the feedback. So does anybody want to argue that development of metadata vocabularies is part of our charter? I have no problem with people working on this, but this *really* should be coordinated with other stakeholders, such as: - RDF community (there's no reason why vocabularies can't be shared between RDF and Microdata, as far as I understand), - Microformats, and - the relevant IETF Working Groups, which just obsoleted RFC 2445 (with RFC 5545), and are working ob obsoleting RFC 2426 (with draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-09). Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 17:08:23 UTC