Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 30, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Your questioning seemed to imply my suggestion suggestion might not
be made in good faith. I think that is unwarranted.
I did not mean to, and I apologize if it came off that way.
It seems that some WG participants are uncomfortable with a
perception of forks or branches, and I've suggested a way to proceed
that would appear less forky.
My observation is simply this: such a proposal would be more credible
if it were applied equally to micro-data and RDFa.
Even with your clarification, I feel that your remarks have a "gotcha"
quality. As a result, the conversation is about my credibility, instead
of about the merits (or lack thereof) of making RDFa an orthogonal spec,
or the merits of making microdata an orthogonal spec.
If you'd like a suggestion to be made about microdata, then making it
yourself might be a more fruitful approach than questioning why I didn't
make it.
Sigh. Let me try again, this time stating only my opinions and
attempting to factor out any reference to your remarks.
Statement: Ian was named an editor of this working group in 2007.
I think we can both agree to this.
Statement: Ian has produced an editors draft including micro-data.
I think we can both agree to this.
Statement: Manu, et al., has produced an editors draft including
micro-data and RDFa.
I think we can both agree to this.
Statement: The working group is obligated to publish Ian's draft
including micro-data and excluding RDFa simply because Ian was named an
editor and he chose to include micro-data and exclude RDFa.
I disagree with the above statement.
Note: I do not assert that you have made or implied the above.
Statement: I (Sam Ruby) recommend that the Working Group publishes Ian's
draft, including micro-data and excluding RDfa at this time as a Working
Draft.
I agree with the above statement. See [1] for more detail.
Regards,
Maciej
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0885.html
