- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 00:48:00 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Manu Sporny, Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:54:37 -0400: > However, the group that is handling HTML+RDFa is the HTML WG and a bug > would have to be logged against the HTML+RDFa spec in HTML WG to see how > that group would like to proceed with @cite and @longdesc support. Done, citing alignment with Microdata, simplicity and XHTML2 as justification: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10970 (I now realize that I should have filed the bug against HTML+RDFa at the same time that as ISSUE-45 was raised, however, I expected the the things to follow suit.) >> In the minutes, as well as above, you spoke about "RDFa Core". Whereas >> the title of ISSUE-45 made clear that the issue was about "XHTML+RDFa >> and HTML+RDFa". > > Yes, that's true. Forgive me for not remembering if we specifically > mentioned XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa. In the debate, Shane and I specifically made clear that ISSUE-45 was limited to XHTML+RDFa - RDFa core was another subject. Hence, this amounts to answer another question. That the participants in the telcon meeting talked past each others, also seems like a possibility to me now. So perhaps be you could look at the issue again - at least for the purpose of clarifying whether the issue of bringing @cite and @longdesc support into XHTML+RDFa, without doing the same in RDFa core, was considered when you decided to propose to close the issue? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 22:50:13 UTC