- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 15:01:27 +0300
- To: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > If we take those two statements above, I think what this means is that we should encourage authors to publish in one forma of their choice only. That kind of choice for authors creates a long-term burden for all consumers. For example, it's burdensome that content consumers need to support application/xhtml+xml alongside text/html even though application/xhtml+xml flopped. There's now enough application/xhtml+xml legacy that removing support is scary. I think we should want an outcome where there's one good way of addressing a given use case. In the overlaid metadata context, this means that for publishing metadata about a certain topic, there's one framework and one vocabulary that everyone supports for metadata about that topic. If we don't know or disagree about which framework or which vocabulary those should be, I think the path that allows wrong guesses to wither away over time is the one where producers try many things simultaneously instead of consumers supporting everything. In that scenario, once we have winners, both producers and consumers can support only those formats from then on. Also, I think we should consider what kind of collateral damage and legacy is left if a given format or the entire concept of overlaid metadata flops. I think for development frameworks (e.g. browsers or non-browser frameworks like the JDK) about the worst possible outcome is that they implement support for many formats, then all of them flop but not totally enough to allow support to be removed and frameworks have to maintain support for multiple format just for legacy compatibility without the maintained code providing value in scenarios involving new content. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 12:02:01 UTC