i agree, the task force work is just the start. But i haven't yet understood a use case for which xml-er would be a solution to a problem. Did i miss it? Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless -----Original message----- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "amy@w3.org" <amy@w3.org> Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 12:22:33 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: Agenda for TAG teleconference of 26 April 2012 On Apr 26, 2012, at 14:05 , Larry Masinter wrote: > I think the tag should plan to bring the work started by the RDF/micodata and XML/HTML task forces to Rec, with the goal of building community consensus based on their work. Speaking as a member of the HTML/XML TF (but not on its behalf) I'm not sure that the report is Rec material. We were asked a question and we have provided our best considered consensus answer. We publish it as a WG Note to "indicate that work has ended on a particular topic" (Process §7.1.3). I don't see the value in moving it to Rec, it has no normative content and it's not something "W3C recommends the wide deployment" thereof (§7.1.2). > I am not convinced that xml-er is the only path forward for xml/html. No one is saying that it is, but it is one avenue of exploration identified by the TF, and the XML-ER CG is carrying out that investigation. If it does turn out to be a good idea, the CG can hand it over to XML Core, which in turn can choose to make a Rec. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 14:01:08 UTC