Re: Minutes of meeting, 2009-10-29...

Some notes on one of the items that refers to me...

Ivan Herman wrote:
[skip]
> Action Items
> 
>    [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
> 
>      [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
> 
>    <scribe> ACTION: Ben to finish authoring RDFa WG charter. [recorded
>    in [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
>    [CONTINUES]
> 
>      [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
> 
>    Ben: Updated it a bit
> 
>    Manu: I also fixed some very small issues
>    ... Ivan had an issue with mentioning the Microsoft extensibility
>    proposal.
> 
>    Ben: We're interested in supporting that language extension
>    proposal.
> 

The minutes may be sketchy here, sorry if I say things that have been
said on the call. My point is not whether we support the language
extension proposal or not. My point is whether something like that
should be in the charter that sketches the work which is to be done by
the group. The decision on the Microsoft proposal is up to the HTML5 WG;
what happens if that WG decides _not_ to take the MS proposal? Will then
this group be breaking its charter? Clearly, this group can give its
official opinion to the HTML5 WG, etc, and can hope that the Microsoft
proposal will go through, but if not, we will have to adapt accordingly.

Ivan



-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf