- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:05:16 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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. > ... That sounds *technically* plausible, but... Do we really want to publish documents that have open issues attached to "Status of this Document"??? If this text is OK for RDFa, why isn't it OK for Microdata? Could you please elaborate? We very clearly decided last month that Microdata and RDFa+in-HTML should have the same status. The Status section should reflect that. I'm not married to the exact wording, but I'd like to see consistency in both drafts. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 11:05:55 UTC