- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:44:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ben@adida.net --- Comment #28 from Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> 2009-09-21 17:44:36 --- Ian's comment can be summarized as "no one has successfully deployed this technology, except for use cases about which I don't care." So, like Shane, I call BS. An objective bug report is one where a clear objective standard for bug-freeness is declared, and that standard is applied fairly to all existing features. What is the standard used here? Ian's personal opinion, however well informed it may be, is not an objective standard. If you look at actual data, here's what you find: Yahoo has published an RDF vocabulary for videos, which Google has chosen to pick up, prefix notation and all, without any coordination from the RDFa Task Force: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/supporting-facebook-share-and-rdfa-for.html In fact, I suspect there wasn't even any Google/Yahoo coordination on this front. I think even microformats have shown this level of interoperability between two major web players, and microformats have been around years longer than RDFa. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 17:44:45 UTC