Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
> Thus my own reading would conclude:
> - It is acceptable for us to use any number of fundamental extension 
> mechanisms to provide for mixing in additional vocabularies, if that 
> seems like the technically sound approach. We should not be struggling 
> to shoehorn every kind of extension vocabulary into a single mechanism.
> - We should be interested in allowing for all sorts of vocabularies, not 
> just the three examples.
> - We should not thrown by the fact that an extension can add further 
> extension mechanisms.
> Julian, Larry, and others who have charter concerns, if you are not 
> persuaded by the above alone, we can take steps to get a more official 
> interpretation. My understanding is that when there is disagreement on 
> charter scope, a common procedure is that the Chairs confer with the 
> Team Contacts on what is the most appropriate interpretation, 
> considering both the language of the charter and the W3C Team's intent. 
> Then they issue a ruling on interpretation of the charter, which can be 
> appealed via the usual avenues (up to and including Formal Objection if 
> necessary). So if anyone wishes to pursue the charter issue further, I 
> can ask my co-Chairs and the Team Contacts to discuss this issue and 
> enter our official interpretation.
> ...

I agree with most of what you said.

Let me clarify again: all I was saying is that both RDFa and Microdata 
are not extension mechanisms that would fall under what the charter 
mentions (otherwise I'd like to see how Microdata can be used to include 
RDFa *or* ITS *or* Ruby into the language).

I do not object to work on them even though I don't believe they are 
part of the charter. I also agree that a single extension point probably 
isn't sufficient, and that both RDFa and Microdata *are* extension points.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 15:59:25 UTC