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

Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:23:09 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=um-znCdVJ+rkQwq-Y4YRboeW1zWeF7tvWTotj@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
Cc: public-rdfa@w3.org
About a month ago I posted a proposal [1] in response to this call. My
mail didn't make it's way through to the public-html list at the time
(I wasn't then a member of the WG nor aware of its procedures). But
the mail did make it through other channels, so I thought I should
clarify my position.

Soon after posting I discovered the RDFaPrefixesNoChange proposal [2].
This includes the same substantive point that I was trying to put
forward, that the proposal "Use of prefixes is too complicated for a
Web technology" [3] is contradicted by the evidence.

So instead of formalising my own proposal, I'd like to express my
support for RDFaPrefixesNoChange.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa/2011Feb/0002.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange
[3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120

>> Date:     Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:57:36 -0800
>> From:     Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>> To:       HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
>> Subject:  ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals
>>           or Counter-Proposals
>> The current status for this issue:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-120
>> - We a single change proposal to simplify the HTML+RDFa specification
>>   by removing prefixes.
>> - We have another change proposal to clarify how prefixes work and
>>   explain that they are optional.
>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit any other alternate
>> Change Proposals (possibly with "zero edits" as the Proposal Details),
>> in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a different
>> change than the specific one in the existing Change Proposals.
>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by March
>> 3rd, 2011, we proceed to evaluate the change proposal that we have
>> received to date.
>> - Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:08 UTC