On Feb 26, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
cc+: Chairs of HTML WG
I agree with Philippe's reply, but just to expand on a couple of
points...
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.
I'm missing the context here. Where would this assertion go? What
exactly would it say?
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?
For all our Working Drafts, there is no firm guarantee it will proceed
to REC. The Working Group could decide to abandon the deliverable
instead of taking it to Last Call. This is true even for the HTML5
draft itself. But it would be fair to say that we are currently
treating HTML+RDFa as a REC-track deliverable.
Regards,
Maciej
