- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:38:24 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
Sam Ruby wrote: > It appears that Ian is on the cusp of making a proposal. It may turn > out to be something that people can live with, and if so, I'll be glad > to declare consensus The proposal is up, and, as Creative Commons rep, I cannot live with it (it's not even close, frankly.) First, this gratuitously ignores much existing spec work and much existing deployment (Yahoo, CC, MySpace, Slideshare, the UK government, the US government, etc.) with a number of use cases that are simply not taken into account (Manu has discussed these at length on the WHATWG list). When another spec solves the problem and has been deployed by significant players, the first step is to consider how that spec can be integrated to the fullest extent. So, I cannot live with something that throws away existing important implementations of the *exact* same use cases for no valid technical reason. The cost to existing implementors is far too high. In addition, this proposal *specifically* conflicts with RDFa by reusing RDFa attributes (i.e. @property) with a different interpretation. In other words, of all possible approaches to the problem, the HTML5 group chose an approach that specifically conflicts with the only other existing W3C spec for the given use cases. I think this may be a W3C first. I absolutely cannot live with that. I note, as a side point, that it's fairly clear this conflict was by design (since it was said that @property is "borrowed from RDFa"). In other words, whereas typical W3C groups go out of their way to prevent conflict with other specs, this group is currently actively creating conflict. -Ben
Received on Sunday, 10 May 2009 23:39:01 UTC