- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:26:22 -0600
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > 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/ > > The RDFa group has a separate email list. In addition, the group has made a request, I believe to have its own charter, so it can proceed independent of this group. Shelley
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 15:26:59 UTC