Shane McCarron wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Ben will confirm then when we met in March, I suggested that the best
course of action was to simply produce a "RDFa in HTML" document, and
that I have taken every opportunity I can find to reinforce that
notion. In the ASF, you will often hear the term JFDI in situations
like these. If you are nof familiar with that term, I'll leave it up
to your imagination what the letters stand for.
>
All this aside, you will note that Ben conveyed your request to the
group, and I and others produced a draft of such a document. However,
at the time, we were told and believed that we could not produce such a
document under the auspices of the W3C because we are not chartered to
do so (the existing task force is under the SemWeb and XHTML 2
Activities). That's why the document is in "ApTest" space [1] today.
The document is being worked on, it has tests, it has implementations,
it will have an implementation report, etc. We have received comments,
we have an issue repository [2], and we are working through those issues.
Re: "we were told"... if you can tell me who told you that, I will
follow up... and resolve the issue.
I would be pleased to release copyright on this document to the W3C once
someone in management there tells me there is a home for it. Until
then, ApTest is more than willing to support the activity. Basically,
and I am sure you agree with me here Sam, I refuse to let bureaucracy
get in the way of progress.
Do I qualify as "in management"? If so, I am saying that if you join
the HTML Working Group and request access to CVS, Mike Smith will work
with you to make it happen (details including ssh keys and copyright).
If you need something more than that, let me know, and I will flatten
those issues too.
I honestly don't believe that there is a charter issue here. Ian, for
example, clearly believes that the /use cases/ which support RDFa are in
scope, he just happens to believe that he has come up with a "superior"
design for addressing those use cases. I happen to believe that common
failing of a standards bodies (and not just the W3C, though it clearly
has happened here) is to produce a lot of "superior" designs and in the
process lost sight of their constituencies and therefore have not gotten
widely deployed.
I for one would rather that the HTML WG produce something worthy of
loving parody by Clay Shirky[3].
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://www.aptest.com/standards/rdfa-html
[2] http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues
[3] http://www.shirky.com/writings/evolve.html
