W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Determination of subjects/objects

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:55:51 -0700
Message-ID: <46AE0A07.7000603@adida.net>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> I don't see the need to 'protect' authors who are not familiar with
> RDF from RDF constructs that they will never use.

I definitely see a need to protect authors from unnecessary complexity.

Complex syntax is scary. People will run away screaming back to simpler
(and far less useful) syntax. So if we have to scare people, we should
do so for a strong reason. But it's not a win-win. It's a compromise.

We must keep in mind that we've been staring at this stuff for years,
literally. So one extra thing to ignore is not a big deal for us. But
for new authors, it's a massive impediment.

> If someone from the
> RDF community thinks this is useful, and _if_ we can support it
> without it getting in the way, then why not?

What does "without getting in the way" mean? If people use it, then it
will get in the way of people copying and pasting RDFa just like they
copy and paste HTML to learn it.

In other words, I disagree with the idea that, if it's marginally
useful, then we should obviously do it. There is a cost to any
complexity. And while there is less cost to complexity that *can* be
overlooked by beginners, it will never be completely overlooked, and it
will always cost us something.

-Ben
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 15:56:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT