- From: Smith, Kevin, \(R&D\) VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:19:03 +0200
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "POWDER feedback" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
+1 to both from me, for the same reasons.
Best,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: 15 September 2008 09:47
To: POWDER feedback
Subject: Opera Software last call comments
Hi,
these are a day late I think :(
1. We not think that POWDER is implementable if the "arbitrary RDF in POWDER" features, those marked at risk in the Formal Semantics Document, remain in the specification.
They are a serious barrier to making it worthwhile continuing our work, as they require a RDF parser in any POWDER-capable tool, rather than allowing simple POWDER authoring tools and making it feasible to have POWDER implementations running on devices of all kinds. Given that an important use case is for gaming machines, and other entertainment devices with internet access, and that these devices generally have much lower processing power than desktop computers (where it is feasible to run RDF processors), this would make POWDER somewhat pointless.
Removing the generalityof the format and maintaining it as a simple, well-defined XML format will make a significant difference to its implementability, and relevance to the Web.
2. We believe that the Link header is likely to be formalised, as it is implemented already and is not very complicated. Therefore we suggest that this feature remain.
Cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 11:20:08 UTC