- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:29:28 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 11/06/2012 01:27 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > Of your two proposals, I think #1 has the best chance of being > adopted (if not for RDFa 1.1, then for RDFa 2.0). The part that is > missing is the data that supports the premise of your argument. Tab, There were a number of questions in the response to you on this issue. See this e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Nov/0013.html We have not received answers to those questions from you. Also, please note that we discussed the issue here and created a number of resolutions as a result of your input and the ensuing discussion: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2012-11-08#ISSUE__2d_143__3a__Use_of_prefixes_is_too_complicated_for_a_Web_technology We're waiting on your answers before we send an official response to your issue. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 02:29:54 UTC