W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: XMLLiteral handling in RDFa in HTML

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:44:35 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270905280844va5e4751k2177a06ed74e3464@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:18:11 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > In fact, that's my biggest concern: that discussions should occur
> > directly between RDFa and HTML5 folks are not happening, happening
> offline, or
> > snarkily, in IRC (
> >
> http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/2009/05/rdfa-guys-wake-up-and-smell-pilgrims.html
> ).
>
> What do you mean? At least Sam Ruby and Philip Taylor are debating the
> technical issues with the RDFa crowd right on this mailing list.
>

I meant exactly what I said: it would have been helpful to have folks who
have implemented RDFa libraries in JS participating, because they will have
the best understanding of the issues. That's not a condemnation of the
folks, just an observation that the discussion isn't as inclusive as it need
be.

Yes, some of the HTML WG folks are participating, but the HTML WG is only
half the equation when it comes to HTML5. It would seem that the WhatWG
folks would rather spend their time making fun of the folks participating.

Sure, we can ignore them, but their comments do reflect a lack of respect
that, I think, undermines what we do. More importantly, it makes me doubt
that anything the RDFa folks generate isn't going to be honored going
forward. And yes, I am going to bring up @property again, as tedious as it
is, because it is a good demonstration of what happens when the HTML5
working groups don't have respect for other specification efforts. Yes, the
use of @property was pulled, but the casual nature of its inclusion and then
its deletion is disquieting.

As for the IRC entries, which Mr. Last Week is so kind to highlight, perhaps
this level of immaturity and passive aggressiveness is common in standards
work, or IRCs. I'm not a big IRC user, and now I'm a bit thankful for my
disinterest in this technology. However, I've followed along with other
groups in the past, and though I've seen a great deal of acrimony at times,
I've not seen such pettiness. Not from people who want their work to be
respected.

One of the issues that Manu recorded in the RDFa issues wiki page is that
perhaps we also need to look at how the DOM works. That's not an unfair
question, and though it doesn't help issues with HTML4, it might with HTML5.
Since the DOM is being modified, in fact was modified for the new microdata
section, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility of making
modifications to it in order to work through some of these issues. To be
able to seriously consider this, though, we have to at least have respect
for each others' interests.

Shelley



>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 15:45:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC