W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:31:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA44626.5020406@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/09/2011 08:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Additionally we would find the following to be "sufficiently novel":
> multiple first hand statements from people who are implementing distinct
> large scale RDFa consuming tools on how they would prefer to proceed.

While I have previously made the point that rehashing, re-questioning, 
re-clarifying, etc. "old information" is now off topic for this mailing 
list; I want to now make it clear that any and all discussion 
(additional supporting evidence, rebuttals, requests for clarification, 
etc) relating to "new information" are welcome here.  I furthermore wish 
to actively encouraged people aware of such new information to post it 
here in order to enable everybody to fully participate in the discussion.

At the present time, I am aware of the following:


- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 12:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC