- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:39:08 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 --- Comment #23 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2009-09-20 09:39:07 --- (In reply to comment #22) > 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.) So Google is "the market leader" for RDFa processing? And just because they screwed up the spec needs to change? -- 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 09:39:16 UTC