- From: gsergiu via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:25:25 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Yes , I expressed a similar opinion, that some people need it, and they should remain in the standard as long a no better solution is proposed. However, the people the didn't participated in the past discussions are quite right to say that the fields are not needed, as there is no real explanation in the standard about who needs, this fields, given the existance of the language tags and implications of redundant information. (you might remember also discussions on redundant fields for External resource) Given this ... I claim that even this ticket is more about improper documentation of the 2 fields, that about their exclusion from the standard. And I hope that we have a agreement on this point.... otherwise we spend again time for long discussion that end up with "won't fix". I find it more appropriate from the process point of view to accept that the ticket is partially valid, create a new ticket for that part, and than close the current ticket. (I cannot enforce this work process, but it is a little bit frustrasting to invest time in discussions, that end up with the conclusion .. you are right but we won't fix) I would be great if the community members would have more time to contribute with very concrete/valid solutions, but this is very hard .. when we are not aware about past discussions. So ... I hope I can create new tickets tomorrow, that it will be fine for me to close this issue .. -- GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335#issuecomment-237588089 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2016 15:25:34 UTC