W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:34:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9DAF42.5080608@intertwingly.net>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/07/2011 07:07 AM, James Graham wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 05:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> We received exactly two change proposals:
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Change_Proposal_for_ISSUE-120
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/RDFaPrefixesNoChange
>> Nobody brought forward a change proposal that matches what you describe.
>> If you wish to do so at this time, please provide new information such
>> as they types described in the decision itself as well as a complete
>> change proposal.
> I believe that the following things represent information that was new
> to me compared to the time the change proposals were originally written:
> 1) A substantial fraction (possibly the majority, although this is an
> inference) of *all* deployed RDFa on the web is OpenGraph API targeted
> at Facebook (I infer this from the fact that the increase in the use of
> RDFa has coincided with the deployment of the OpenGraph stuff and the
> fact that it is the biggest consumer of RDFa that doesn't also accept
> microformats or microdata.
> 2) The Facebook implementation of "RDFa" is entirely non-conforming with
> regard to prefixes. It simply treats properties as (prefix, name) tuples
> instead of (uri, name) tuples. If the prefix matches the property is
> processed, otherwise it is ignored. As a collary, prefixes used by
> facebook are effectively unusable in other content that is not intended
> to provide OpenGraph data.
> 3) There is deployed content that depends on this behavior.
> Given the above, it is difficult to see a path by which the current RDFa
> spec can be made to match reality. Specs that don't match reality are
> not useful and I don't think we should be producing them. If I had
> realized the seriousness of the problem at the time of the original
> poll, I would have advocated a change proposal something like the
> following:
> * For use in HTML documents, RDFa property prefixes MUST be registered
> using a lightweight (e.g. wiki based) registry similar to rel values
> * Tools processing RDFa in HTML MUST NOT use any in-document mechanism
> to bind prefixes to URIs, but instead MUST only recognise prefixes as
> they are registered (obviously they need not recognise all prefixes
> registered at a given moment).
> * For compatibility, authors MAY put xmlns declarations corresponding to
> prefixes in the document. If they are so used they MUST match the
> bindings that would be produced from the registered prefixes.
> Do the chairs consider the above information sufficiently novel to
> consider reopening the issue were a change proposal to be submitted? If
> not, I see no point in wasting my time on writing one.

That's a question that merits a response.  I'll see to it that it gets 
one.  That being said, I personally am prioritizing efforts directly 
related to Last Call at the present moment, so please don't expect a 
response quickly.  If however at some later point you feel that this 
question was forgotten, feel free to ping the co-chairs.

Like we have done with ISSUE-30, I would also encourage you to work with 
those individuals that supported the prevailing Change Proposal to see 
if you can obtain and address any objections that they may have with 
this proposal.

>>> Do the chairs intend to respond to my request for clarification about
>>> the decision?
>> General statement: publication of Working Group decisions indicate the
>> point at which the co-chairs have determined that the Group has duly
>> considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible
>> and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on[1]. I believe that you
>> understand the need for this[2].
> Indeed. I also believe that it is not in the best interests of the group
> for the chairs to silently ignore queries about how decisions were
> reached. In particular I don't think that answering reasonable enquiries
> prevents the group from moving on. If the reasonable enquiries become a
> larger volume of discussion without new information it is of course
> appropriate to halt that discussion.

Operationally, there is little difference between quickly responding -- 
even to reasonable inquiries -- and ongoing discussion.  Additionally, I 
would rather not discuss decisions that already are the subject of a 
Formal Objection.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:34:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC