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

On 04/11/2011 09:53 AM, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> I had not quite intended to restart the thread here, and my apologies to
> the chairs.
> However, I also did wish to clarify a comment:
> Please note, I'm not trying to stimulate any further debate here,

Please stop.

Operationally, there is no difference between everybody clarifying 
comments, and "ensur[ing] that only correct information is allowed to 
promulgate" and a discussion.

Unless anybody has any ADDITIONAL types of new information, repeating 
endlessly statements purporting to re-clarify or re-refute is not 

Furthermore, this thread restarted when James Graham outlined a new 
proposal that retained a prefixes syntax, it just interpreted them 
differently, in a way that at least one consumer of RDFa appears to 
currently implement.

At this point, if people would like to see this issue reopened, show us 
some evidence.  Reanalyzing data that was readily available during the 
last year and a half isn't new evidence.  Identifying that deployed 
software has bugs is new new information.  If anybody believes that 
these deviations aren't bugs but are intentional, then show us some 
evidence of that.

Alternately, show us massive amount of content that does depend on these 

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 14:31:59 UTC