- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:58:42 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Krzysztof Maczynski <1981km@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
2010/1/9 Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>: > Maciej: > >> Although Working Draft publications do not require consensus, I >> encourage you to consider withdrawing this objection for the following >> reasons ... > > ------ > > I don't withdraw my objections recorded in: > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-76-objection-poll/results > which apply to this CfC. > ----- > >> - The HTML WG charter specifically calls for us to include extension >> mechanisms: "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to >> permit independently developed vocabularies ... to be mixed into HTML >> documents." Microdata is one way to mix in such vocabularies. > > But the actually charter which you only selectively quoted says: > > "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit > independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization > Tag Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents." > > Microdata does not provide a means of including Internationalized > Tag Set, Ruby, OR RDFa, and so "Microdata is one way to mix in such > vocabularies" is false, and your misquoting inappropriate. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding things here, I'll have to fall back to my usual excuse of English being my second language. But my understanding of "such as ITS, Ruby, and RDFa" is that it doesn't mean "only ITS, Ruby, and RDFa", no? My reading is that ITS, Ruby and RDFa are examples of things that we could provide extension mechanisms for, not the only things covered by the charter. I'll also note that Microdata is very similar to RDFa, and so would seem to be covered by the sentence you cite from the charter. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 20:59:34 UTC