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

sanity check Re: ISSUE-66

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:49:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6F8E69.1070204@webr3.org>
To: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi All,

Just a quick understanding check re Ian's feedback.

RDFa Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> ISSUE-66 (Core - Ian Hickson): Last Call comments from Ian Hickson for RDFa Core 1.1 [LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/66
> 
> Raised by: Manu Sporny
> On product: LC Comment - RDFa Core 1.1
> 
> RDFa Core 1.1 Last Call comments from Ian Hickson:
> 
> I believe RDFa should not have prefix-based indirection, for reasons that 
> have been listed many times over the past few years; since this draft adds 
> two new indirection mechanisms rather than removing any, I am not 
> satisfied that my earlier feedback has been adequately addressed.

Essentially, we need it, it's deployed, re pick it up via 120 on the 
HTML wg, RDFa itself does have prefix based indirection, it's used 
heavily etc..

> The permitted use of xmlns="" as one of the prefix declaration mechanisms 
> specifically will cause serious compatibility issues for reasons that have 
> similiarly been elucidated numerous times over the past few years.

we're deprecated xmlns for all but bc reasons now - I think the main 
point is it's mentioned in HTML5+RDFa 50+ times, more than any other 
term in fact, can we drop that to zero, and express intent to do so to 
Ian in the response?

> The language as a whole is overly complicated, e.g. with a preponderance 
> of attributes significantly beyond the minimum necessary. Again, this 
> issue has been described in detail in the past.

RDF caters for lang, some RDFa Host environments do, we've catered for 
it minimally in RDFa core such that if encountered, say xml:lang or lang 
in xhtml, then it can be used, otherwise it is unhandled. That is to 
say, it's not an RDF Core attribute, and usage is delegated to host 
languages. Fair summary?

> IMHO, you should do some real usability studies (one-way glass and 
> everything) like we did with microdata. Or at a minimum, see if people 
> outside the RDF/RDFa community can actually use RDFa for any non-trivial 
> purpose without help and actually get it right. Or indeed, the same with 
> implementators. So far, every implementor I'm aware of has done it with 
> fundamental bugs in their first attempt. Some have since fixed those bugs, 
> but any technology can be implemented correctly _eventually_ -- whether 
> the bugs get shaken out after years of work isn't the interesting 
> question. What matters if you want long-term interop is whether someone 
> you've never heard of can implement the technology more or less correctly 
> the first time, without being pestered into fixing problems.

We agree, and see wide spread usage of RDFa with real world usage and 
feedback from numerous implementers, RDFa core is the product of that 
feedback, as opposed to some preliminary usability studies, indeed we 
could never hope to achieve a usability study which matched the scale of 
the currently deployed RDFa data.

Of course all the above are my own words between us, just sanity 
checking our position - any errors in my understanding?

I will write up a proposed LC response and run it past the group, before 
doing a formal response.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 12:50:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:09 GMT