Time for some closure on structural markup issues

["Daniel J. Greenwood" <dang@mit.edu>]

Dear TC Members:

I think it is time to come to closure on where we
intend to go with the structural markup.  There has
been some very good, helpful and high quality
discussion on the issues.  We're at the point of
deminishing returns on discussion now.   

For example, I can see both sides to this one (simple
vs gram) and am less concerned with where we come out
than with coming to closure that we (as in we who are
still left standing) can accept and would adopt.  I
would be happy doing a simple model based on the art
of the possible today, with an eye toward migration
down the road, and I'd also be happy going further and
fixing some of the issues now (more granular uses,
better conversions, etc) with gram model and being
more best practice oriented - if there is agreement
behind that.  I feel I could easily justify either
approach, could explain it and teach it to clients and
during road shows (conferences, seminars, etc).  So -
please - let us seek some closure during todays call. 
I believe there is a need to close the structural
issues now and conclude whatever our best guess is at
this time.  

Looking forward to chatting with you all, and moving
to the next steps on this standard together.

 - Dan Greenwood