On Jan 10, 2010, at 17:19 , Shelley Powers wrote: > I don't care what happens to the document, as I stated in my comment > on the poll. And though I realize a FPWD doesn't demonstrate W3C > support, I'm concerned it could imply W3C support. The W3C seemingly > supporting two competing metadata specifications does not seem either > productive or consistent. I hear your concern, but I think that we should be less shy about exploring several alternative solutions at once than we have been in the past. If there are sizeable communities supporting different options at one point, it's unlikely that W3C going with one too early it going to help all that much. Keeping people inside the same organisation makes it easier to keep them speaking (even if it means shouting once in a while :). A similar case can be found in WebApps with the multiple database-related specifications. An FPWD demonstrates interest, nothing more. Anyone getting the wrong idea here should be corrected. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 11:41:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC