- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:31:04 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, swick@w3.org
* Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> [2005-05-18 23:35+0200] > > * Dan Brickley wrote: > >> Note that the SVG Working Group rejected the request to include XHTML > >> 2.0's meta data module, http://www.w3.org/2005/04/Tiny12DoC.html#T015, > >> and the HTML Working Group has been asked to reject "RDF/A". I am not > >> sure there is a point in keeping "RDF/A" on the agenda. > > > >Could you cite a reference to that last point? And elaborate, perhaps? > >Since when does everyone who asks the HTML WG for something get their > >wish? (eg. I'd like to see the Imagemap part swapped out for an > >SVG-based approach...). Is it your expectation that the HTML WG have > >decided to drop RDF/A? Is this minuted anywhere? > > You can find comments on XHTML 2.0's meta data module and RDF/A in the > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf and www-html(-editor) archives; I would not be > surprised if the HTML Working Group decides to reject the SWBPD's re- > quest to adopt RDF/A but I am unaware of publicly available information > to this effect. RDF/A, on my understanding, isn't a proposal from SWBPD tom the HTML WG, but an approach that came from within the HTML WG itself, and is now being worked on collaboratively by the two groups. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 22:31:13 UTC