- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:07:09 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- CC: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 11/29/2012 12:15 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > That is how Manu framed his objection to Microdata for instance - > not a Formal Objection yet, but will be if the Working Group decides > to proceed. That seems like a good way to do things while leaving > room for a WG decision first. I have seen Sam's e-mail stating that the objection e-mail I sent the mailing list will be used as Rationale for a WG poll on the matter. I will revise that e-mail to include questions raised and answers delivered and provide additional rationale before December 4th (I do not need extra time to complete that - I will complete it this weekend). We all want this resolved, and I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to stall the process. When I said that I was going to raise a Formal Objection eventually, my assumption was that there might be a fast-track decision made without a HTML WG poll. Since there is now going to be an HTML WG poll on the matter, if that poll results in consensus around Microdata going to REC, then I will not raise a formal objection. That is, I will defer to the members of this group and the decision process in place in the HTML WG, even if I think it's a mistake to take both specs to REC. I wanted there to be a thorough discussion on the matter, and I believe that the discussion is happening and will be further aided by the HTML WG poll. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 15:07:50 UTC