Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-28: following your nose to the RDFa specification

Dan Connolly wrote:
>> I don't see you arguing that these parsers should stop what they're
>> doing, rather I see you arguing that people should add profiles.
>> Similarly, we're not going to tell people to stop looking for RDFa, but
>> we are going to tell RDFa publishers to put the right DTD declaration
>> and we are going to tell the HTML WG to make their spec extensible
>> enough so that publishers can do the right thing and declare their usage
>> of RDFa.
> Ah.. so negotiation with the HTML WG _is_ in the critical path for RDFa.

No. It's not on the critical path. It's not part of our charter so far.
But I do hope that it makes it into the HTML WG at some point.

> I've been struggling to get a clear answer about that (and
> other requirements questions).

What are the other requirements on which you don't have a clear answer?
All of the issues you've brought up are in the issue tracking system, to
the best of my knowledge.

> The schedule you recently gave only goes up to Working Draft.
> I suppose this negotiation should happen before Last Call; at the
> vary latest, it has to happen before Proposed Recommendation.

No, definitely not. We're not dealing with the HTML WG before this Last

> Perhaps a release of RDFa scoped only to modular XHTML could
> go to REC first, and then an update could integrate
> with HTML 5.

Exactly, that's the plan. We're not chartered to do RDFa in HTML5. I
sure hope HTML5 begins to think about extensibility, but that's part of
the bigger picture, not part of this particular last call.

> I wonder what sort of "done" you had in mind when
> making this estimate...
>  Ben: we should aim to be done before November
>   --



Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 23:39:27 UTC