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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:09:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4D920422.4060703@intertwingly.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/29/2011 11:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> === Arguments not considered:
>> Following are either direct quotes or paraphrases of arguments which
>> were put forward which were not considered.
>>   Running examples from the OpenGraph Protocol site through the
>>   facebook linter shows that removing the prefix declaration has no
>>   effect but changing it prevents any properties from being recognised.
>>   Code inspection of some of the other tools indicates that there are
>>   clients in Python, PHP, Ruby and Java that depend on literal matching
>>   of the string "og:".
>> No change proposal was put forward suggesting that all usages be
>> migrated to fixed prefixes.  Nor was there any evidence put forward
>> that fixes to these tools would break content.  The fact that these
>> tools have bugs is uncontested but that, in itself, does not help
>> identify the proposal that draws the weakest objections.
> ...
>>   It would be important to know if Facebook's and Google's content
>>   consuming code could be made work with prebound prefixes for
>>   compatibility with legacy content that uses prefixes.
>> We only consider proposals which actually were put forward.  Neither
>> change proposal proposed standardizing Facebook's or Google's prefixes.
> I object to these two arguments not being considered

I just want to be clear, per the W3C process[1]:

   The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English connotations.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:09:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:34 UTC