- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:22:26 -0400
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/31/10 02:33, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> I would suggest that this Working Group makes it a point to have the >> RDFa WG review the Microdata specification when it goes to LC. >> Similarly, this WG should make it a point to ensure that WHATWG reviews >> the RDFa Core 1.1, HTML+RDFa, and RDFa DOM API specification when it >> goes to LC. >> >> I can't imagine that the reviews are going to be overflowing with >> praise, from either group, but it's the proper due diligence that should >> be expected from any W3C Working Group. > > I can promise a review of the RDFa 1.1 spec. Great, thanks in advance for your time, Tab. :) Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > It seems to me that it is the RDFa WG's > responsibility to seek cross-functional review of RDFa Core 1.1 and > RDFa DOM API; I hope HTML WG is on the list of other WGs that should > review. Yes, that is correct - it is the responsibility of RDFa WG. HTML WG is most definitely on the list of other WGs that should review the documents. > And it is the HTML WG's responsibility to ensure cross- > functional review of HTML+RDFa. RDFa WG will certainly be on the list > for that. Glad to hear it. I had assumed that was the case, but it's always good to know that an assumption is valid. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 15:22:58 UTC