- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:10:49 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 11, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Finally, more alignment with the sister specification (RDFa) would > be good. It currently has: > > "The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft > does not imply endorsement by the W3C HTML Working Group or the W3C > as a whole. In particular, > > * There are one or more alternate methods of adding data without > using RDFa, such as [microdata]. > * There are discussions of alternate extensibility mechanisms, > covered in [issue-41], which might allow other ways of integrating > RDFa. > * There is concern that continued development of this document > belongs in a different working group." > > which I think is very helpful in understanding the status of these > documents. How about if we handle concerns with the documents with the same kinds of issue markers that the HTML5 draft has, as suggested by Sam? Linking to an issue and stating that it blocks progress to Last Call seems to be completely uncontroversial. However, markers that put the wording of the objection inline and don't link to an issue seem to cause arguments. This was strikingly demonstrated by Manu's request to publish a draft with some issue markers handpicked and expressed in the form of his own opinion on the problem. That caused a great deal of controversy. However, James Graham subsequently did the work to automatically add status markers for all issues that simply provided the issue number, short name, link to the issue, and a statement that the issue blocks progress to Last Call. That went through with absolutely no controversy and I believe everyone is happy with the result. I suspect the automated marker adding tool would work for ISSUE-41 if we just add the appropriate other section. For your other two concerns, are these recorded as bugs or issues? Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 02:11:22 UTC