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

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:37:19 +0100
Message-ID: <640dd5060706281037x15a1cb09o26e66acd8e8ca1f2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Ben,

I pressed send to early....anyway I don't think it's surprising that
I'm confused on what we're voting on, if you look at your first email
that kicked off this thread.

Regards,

Mark

On 28/06/07, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote:
> Hey Ben...I don't hate you! :) I think I may have misunderstood what
> exactly we're voting on though.
>
> I would have voted happily for the resolution to use @class, and kept
> my preference for @isA a guilty secret, until some future version. But
> then Ivan also raised some doubts, and since I also knew that Steven
> had reservations too, I thought it fair enough to chime in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> On 28/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > You are tempting me to reopen the issue, since you are mostly voting for
> > the status quo, but my chair responsibilities force me to refuse to fall
> > for your smooth ways :) Let me re-frame my reasoning, because I believe
> > this will be important for the principle of how we resolve other issues.
> >
> > @href anywhere was *not* resolved in May or in the Primer or in the
> > talks. Adding @href everywhere does not create a moving target, it adds
> > a new way to express triples that may otherwise be difficult to achieve.
> > All existing RDFa in the Primer, in our examples, still work. All
> > triples generated by Operator are still good (though some new ones may
> > be missed if the spec was implemented very strictly.)
> >
> > If we take away @class, we break almost everything, including most of
> > our successes to date. That's a big risk to take, and one we agreed we
> > couldn't take anymore.
> >
> > So we're not just ratifying existing stuff only, but we must heavily
> > lean towards not breaking big items, as we agreed on 5/31, with every
> > core member of the task force on the call, minus Elias, who later
> > expressed significant "moving target" worries in a separate discussion.
> >
> > I know, you must hate me right now, but that is the unfortunate destiny
> >  of most W3C chairs, as I understand it :)
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> > Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > > Hi Ben,
> > >
> > > I'm not with you...are we trying to resolve all syntax issues in the
> > > next two weeks, or just ratifying what we have? We could have avoided
> > > a lot of discussion on '@href everywhere' if we were merely ratifying
> > > what we already had, but people in the group seemed to think it was
> > > actually important enough to discuss. (And I spent a long time trying
> > > to find a compromise.)
> > >
> > > As before, I'm not saying I'm totally against sticking with @class,
> > > even though I think @isA is slightly easier to understand. I'm only
> > > saying that we don't need to be bounced into a conclusion simply on
> > > the basis that it shouldn't be discussed. (Particularly when there
> > > have been consistent objections from Steven all the way through.)
> > >
> > > I suggest we put it to a vote, and move on. :)
> > >
> > > If I could vote for the various positions, I would opt for:
> > >
> > >  +1 for a new attribute
> > >  + 0.9 for using @class as we have it now :)
> > >  -1 for using @role.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 28/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> > >> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > >> > Hi Ben,
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm not sure I agree. Sure we've done talks, but the main source of
> > >> > information for people, going forward, will be the primer and our
> > >> > various specs.
> > >>
> > >> Mark,
> > >>
> > >> I need to be a bit of a stickler here, because we all talked about this
> > >> in our May 31st conference call after all the May talks, and we agreed
> > >> that we couldn't make RDFa a moving target:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/31-rdfa-minutes.html
> > >>
> > >> Removing the meaning of @class would make RDFa very much a moving
> > >> target, and, no matter how technically beautiful an alternate solution
> > >> is, we would lose a significant chunk of folks who are beginning to
> > >> depend on the syntax.
> > >>
> > >> In other words, I think our "last chance" to change this particular,
> > >> central RDFa issue has passed.
> > >>
> > >> -Ben
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>   Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer
>
>   mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
>   http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com
>
>   standards. innovation.
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 17:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC