- From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:39:12 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Hello Sam. Sam Ruby wrote: > Martin McEvoy wrote: >> >> It ridiculous, and it gets worse the further along you get. its an >> ugly specification, totally unexpected from a learned community. > > This is *NOT* constructive. Focus. Sorry.. > > I assume that you are trying to make one of the following points. > > 1) Microdata should be a separate spec. Yes it should.. > If so, the argument you are making in this email is off topic at best. I wasnt discussing that, we were discussing my assertion that, Microdata is not "Designed for humans first and machines second". but the discussion has drifted to Microdata is bogus semantics. > > 2) Microdata is suboptimal for certain use cases. If so, it this > input is not constructive. Specific bug reports would be much more > helpful. > > 3) Microdata is something that you would never use. If you can cite > specifics about adoption by other people may make your life harder, > that would be helpful. But again: specifics. No at this present time I would not use it, its suboptimal for my needs. and in my view it doesn't add any value to HTML > > If you are trying to make a point other than one of these three, then > I simply don't understand the point that you are trying to make, and I > assume that others don't either. If so, please try to get to the > point. If not, then please move on. General statements about vague > dangers won't convince anyone. > I am going to respond further, but in a separate email. Best wishes. -- Martin McEvoy http://weborganics.co.uk/ "You may find it hard to swallow the notion that anything as large and apparently inanimate as the Earth is alive." Dr. James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia
Received on Saturday, 17 October 2009 15:39:42 UTC