- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:53:20 +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: > ... >> That sounds *technically* plausible, but... Do we really want to >> publish documents that have open issues attached to "Status of this >> Document"??? > > No, I am assuming there are substantive issues with parts of the spec, > and that expressing them as bugs (and, if necessary, issues) would > result in the proper status markers. So yes or no then? Do you think it would be appropriate to have issue markers on the Status section for FPWD? > ... >> 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. > > Manu chose to use that wording after hearing people's feedback on the > status section. I don't think treating both drafts equally means we > should order Ian to change his status wording to be the same as what > Manu used, nor do I think we should order Manu to use the same wording What I'm asking for is that the W3C Team, which I was told is responsible for this Section, puts in equivalent text. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 12:54:00 UTC