- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:15:09 -0500
- To: RDFa WG Team/Chairs <team-rdfa-chairs-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Philippe le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, W3C Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
cc+: Chairs of HTML WG On 02/26/2010 01:05 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Manu Sporny wrote: >> Since HTML+RDFa is in scope, and since there is a RDFa WG committed >> to continuing work on RDFa, HTML+RDFa should be a deliverable REC of >> HTML WG, right? > > The question is whether we really _need_ such an assertion. What I mean > is, is there an assertion for any of the other rec track documents? Well, there used to be only one REC track document: HTML - all the other documents have been split out to other WGs, like WebApps. > The > HTML+RDFa doc has been published as a draft and will be continued to be > done so. I do not think this question really arises (nota bene, the same > question can be raised for the microdata and canvas documents, that were > the subject of the last round of discussion...) So, I think that my question is fairly simple, then. When we were publishing HTML+RDFa as a FPWD, and then again in the most recent draft, it was repeated several times that (paraphrasing): "Just because the HTML WG is publishing HTML+RDFa now does not mean that we intend to commit to publishing it as a REC". Has HTML WG, with the recent charter update, committed to HTML+RDFa as a WG deliverable? This text seems to imply that it has: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#deliverables Can I start telling people that RDFa is planned to be released as a part of HTML5? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 21:15:44 UTC