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

Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:59:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA5C85F.20702@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 04/13/2011 10:46 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 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
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Sep/0126.html
> 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
> disappointed.

I will agree that the quality of this item alone as "new information" is 
borderline at best; but we have indicated that we would be willing to 
evaluate it as a part of a larger package.

I will further note that your objection was evaluated in the context of 
the only proposals which actually were brought forward:


> 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.

My suggestion to that those who are interested in pursuing this work is 
to close the gap between "intentionally deviate" and "actively support 
the specific change proposal that you put forward".  Identifying a 
number of tools that "intentionally deviate" and do so in a consistent 
way would be borderline new information.  Going further and identifying 
that they actively support something which nobody fleshed out and 
actively proposed previously... that would be a much easier case to make.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 15:59:49 UTC

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