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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:47:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinMUgo7O5vOvLQPq35NvafoSdx9A2B48GfARYr0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 11:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> === Arguments not considered:
>>>
>>> Following are either direct quotes or paraphrases of arguments which
>>> were put forward which were not considered.
>>>
>>>  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.  The fact that these
>>> tools have bugs is uncontested but that, in itself, does not help
>>> identify the proposal that draws the weakest objections.
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>>  It would be important to know if Facebook's and Google's content
>>>  consuming code could be made work with prebound prefixes for
>>>  compatibility with legacy content that uses prefixes.
>>>
>>> We only consider proposals which actually were put forward.  Neither
>>> change proposal proposed standardizing Facebook's or Google's prefixes.
>>
>> I object to these two arguments not being considered
>
> I just want to be clear, per the W3C process[1]:
>
>  The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English connotations.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews

Is it necessary for me to care?  Does my email get significantly
different treatment based on whether I add the word "formal"?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:48:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC