W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:00:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9C802B.9080600@intertwingly.net>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/06/2011 10:03 AM, James Graham wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 05:15 PM, James Graham wrote:
>> On 03/29/2011 04:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Running examples from the OpenGraph Protocol site through the
>>> facebook linter shows that removing the prefix declaration has no
>>> effect but changing it prevents any properties from being recognised.
>>> Code inspection of some of the other tools indicates that there are
>>> clients in Python, PHP, Ruby and Java that depend on literal matching
>>> of the string "og:".
>>>
>>> No change proposal was put forward suggesting that all usages be
>>> migrated to fixed prefixes. Nor was there any evidence put forward
>>> that fixes to these tools would break content.
>>
>> I believe that is actually mentioned in the adopted change proposal:
>>
>> "It is correct to say that the usage of the Facebook terms also reveal
>> problems around namespaces insofar as many sites do not follow the
>> advise of Facebook and do not add the right namespaces"
>>
>> So it is clear that for backward-compatible processing of actual
>> OpenGraph content one must not use prefixes but must treat the name as
>> opaque. (I mention as an aside that this also implies that one cannot
>> use the og: prefix in some other context since it may cause the data to
>> be misappropriated as OpenGraph data).

We received exactly two change proposals:

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Change_Proposal_for_ISSUE-120
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange

Nobody brought forward a change proposal that matches what you describe.

If you wish to do so at this time, please provide new information such 
as they types described in the decision itself as well as a complete 
change proposal.

>>> The fact that these
>>> tools have bugs is uncontested but that, in itself, does not help
>>> identify the proposal that draws the weakest objections.
>>
>> Did you consider my further point that widespread failure to implement
>> the prefix mechanism in client software provides clear evidence that the
>> prefix mechanism is too complex for some constituency, either authors or
>> implementors?

Each of the the objections provided in response to the survey were 
evaluated against each of the change proposals provided.

> Do the chairs intend to respond to my request for clarification about
> the decision?

General statement: publication of Working Group decisions indicate the 
point at which the co-chairs have determined that the Group has duly 
considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible 
and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on[1].  I believe that 
you understand the need for this[2].

We invite new information to be provided.  Alternately formal objections 
can be raised at this time; and if raised we will record them[3].  Any 
such objections will be evaluated by the appropriate people at the 
appropriate point in the process.

- Sam Ruby

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#managing-dissent
[2] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110315#l-416
[3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 15:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC