Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

* Mark Birbeck wrote:
>You said that RDF/A was dropped, and I replied that it wasn't. You then said
>that there had been insufficient explanation of the motivations for RDF/A,
>so I gave you some. You now say that RDF/A doesn't do the job...I hope
>you'll forgive me if I don't chase your moving goalposts any more on this --
>especially since you warned me in your first email that you are unlikely to
>be convinced ;)

Sorry Mark but I said in response to Dan Brickley's comments on RDF/A in
SVG that the SVG Working Group rejected that idea and similar concerns
have been expressed on RDF/A in XHTML, such that I do not see much point
in keeping RDF/A on the agenda. I've been then been asked whether it is
my expectation that the HTML Working Group might "drop" RDF/A to which I
responded that that would not surprise me. You then said that you do not
understand how I could arrive at that point and I've explained that (yet
again). That RDF/A does not seem to "do the job" I said long ago, there
is nothing new here. I did not say "RDF/A was dropped" at any point.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 00:29:49 UTC