- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:08:56 +0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Sep 23, 2009, at 01:45, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Sep 21, 2009, at 11:55 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> I don't support the publication of HTML+RDFa as an FPWD in the HTML >> WG, because I think HTML WG deliverables shouldn't have such >> fundamental spec writing errors. > > Do you want this taken as an objection Call for Consensus on > publishing? If so, could you respond to my email asking for > objections, just to make it clear? I intentionally said "I don't support" as opposed to "I object" to avoid filing a FO and merely to go on record not supporting the spec construction Shane said was being used (to pre-empt potential later appeals to unanimous silent sign-off to such construction). > (Note: I don't think errors in the mechanics of sepc construction > constitute a very strong reason to object to FPWD; it would be a > good reason to object to to Last Call if not fixed by then. I think > it's not very hard to fix HTML+RDFa to consistently describe > operation in terms of an abstract tree model, and I expect this will > need to be done to get a draft the WG can agree on.) I discussed the xmlns:foo issue space with Manu off-list, and I now trust that the draft will be further worked on using DOM/Infoset-based definitions as opposed to bits-on-the-wire definitions. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 17:09:52 UTC