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

Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:46:51 +0300
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <1302706011.2116.60.camel@shuttle>
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 08:31 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: 
> On 04/09/2011 08:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > Additionally we would find the following to be "sufficiently novel":
> > multiple first hand statements from people who are implementing distinct
> > large scale RDFa consuming tools on how they would prefer to proceed.
> While I have previously made the point that rehashing, re-questioning, 
> re-clarifying, etc. "old information" is now off topic for this mailing 
> list; I want to now make it clear that any and all discussion 
> (additional supporting evidence, rebuttals, requests for clarification, 
> etc) relating to "new information" are welcome here.  I furthermore wish 
> to actively encouraged people aware of such new information to post it 
> here in order to enable everybody to fully participate in the discussion.
> At the present time, I am aware of the following:
>    http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20110411#l-573
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Apr/0062.html

The IRC log line you refer to contains a link to

Since my response to the objection poll on ISSUE-120 included the above
URL, a Chair considering it "new information" is rather odd. Frankly, it
makes me feel that my objection hasn't been processed properly. I'm

However, despite my disappointment, I'd be happy to see the Chairs
reconsider the ISSUE in the light of the "new" information of both a
Google engineer and a Facebook engineer expressing that their
implementations intentionally deviate from the RDFa spec in a way
relevant to the ISSUE.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 14:47:25 UTC

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