- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:18:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 --- Comment #22 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2009-09-20 09:18:36 --- (In reply to comment #20) > Anyway, by your statement you do seem to be in conflict with some of our famous > design principles. HTML+RDFa content is out there, and there needs to be a spec > for it. What's specified in the draft is very different from how the implementation with the most market significance (Google Rich Snippets) processes existing "RDFa" content. Therefore, the draft has to be considered to be prospective rather than retrospective. A prospective spec that's different enought from the market leader to be considered simultaneously retrospective should have it's design bugs fixed. (If you get rid of prefix-based indirection, one element creating more than one triple and lower the complexity of the model from graph to tree, you get something more similar to microdata than RDFa.) -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 09:18:45 UTC