- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:36:40 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 9, 2010, at 21:58 , Jonas Sicking wrote: > 2010/1/9 Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>: >> 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. That is my reading as well (albeit equally non-native): since RDFa is listed as an example of an in-charter vocabulary, and since Microdata has similar scope, Microdata is inside the boundaries of the charter. I support this publication. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 11:37:11 UTC