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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 09:14:48 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimkNCQCe+H8PNkrn1QHPwbu74zPnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> I ask you to give us a few days to evaluate the request that you have made.
>  Meanwhile I am willing to state that the fact that you "thought that was
> the reason for *URIs*, not prefixes" does not meet that bar.

Kurt's statement was strictly incorrect, though; jgraham's correction
aids in keeping the discussion focused on the matter at hand, which is
precisely what to do with prefixes.  If someone believe that
*prefixes* are the mechanism by which you disambiguate mixed languages
(rather than one possible solution to the problem of "using URIs to
disambiguate mixed languages makes hand-authoring hard"), you'll draw
incorrect conclusions.  Jgraham correctly pointed out one such
confusion: that it's okay for prefixes to be complex, because machines
will usually be the ones who author them.  Machines don't have the
problem that prefixes attempt to solve, so we shouldn't worry about
them as a class of producers - prefixes, if they are kept, must solely
be optimized for human hand-authoring, as that was their original (and
currently unchanged) purpose.

It is within everyone's best interest to ensure that only correct
information is allowed to promulgate in a discussion.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 16:15:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT