Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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:
>> 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
>> 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.

Indeed, and for the time being it seems clear to me (at least) that this 
is a simple case of following the robustness principle / Postel's Law:

   Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept.

Do they advise to send the prefix declaration, yes, do they require it 
when consuming, no. The likes of Facebook/Opengraph are only concerned 
with consuming their own og:/fb: data at the moment, if or when a time 
comes that they wish to consider other RDFa data too, then the prefix 
declarations will become far more important to their consuming software.



Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 17:47:39 UTC