W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: ISSUE-58: PlainLiteral and TypedLiteral value for strings [RDFa 1.1 API]

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:39:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4CC9DF65.5020307@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 10/28/2010 03:27 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> You are the chair, and I of course defer to your decisions on this. 
> However, I want to put on the record that I am pretty sure if a
> submitter wants to withdraw their comment, then according to the process
> we can pretend it never happened.  However, that might have been an
> XHTML 2 working group internal rule, and not a W3C rule.  In general (in
> roberts rules, for example) if the person who initiates a discussion
> withdraws their support (and if there was seconder, if that person also
> withdraws their support) then the discussion is killed.  If some one
> else thinks it is important, they have to raise it themselves.  This is
> done so that the people who really support an issue are the champion of
> that issue.  At least, that is my understanding.

Yes, Shane, you're absolutely correct (and I'm crunched for time, so
I'll have to be brief). I'm afraid I confused the issue further with my
response.

I don't think that any of the ISSUEs that Nathan has raised should be
"void"ed or closed without WG consideration - they're all important
issues, some of them have simple solutions, but that doesn't make
recording the discussion any less important (not saying that you're
asserting that, btw).

If Nathan had submitted an issue and it was clearly a mistake, in that
we had already discussed the issue or that there was clear spec text
that addressed his issue, I would agree that we could just close the
issue without going through the process.

However, with ISSUE-58, I don't believe that the above paragraph
applies. There was confusion about this particular issue before, we had
never discussed the issue as a WG. I can see it coming up again when
people go to implement the RDFa API - it would be useful if we could
point to a WG decision at that point. This is to prevent someone from
asserting that the WG had never considered the issue during LC.

So, while you're absolutely correct above, Shane (and thank you for
clarifying the mess I caused), I don't think it applies to ISSUE-58 or
any of Nathan's other ISSUEs.

I think that all of Nathan's issues should be moved to OPEN status. I
hadn't done it yet because I wanted to give myself enough time to review
them before accepting them into the RDFa WG work queue.

Others may feel differently, please speak up now if you do.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Saving Journalism - The PaySwarm Developer API
http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/09/12/payswarm-api/
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 20:39:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC