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

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 11:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby<>  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
> [1]

Is it necessary for me to care?  Does my email get significantly
different treatment based on whether I add the word "formal"?


Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:48:01 UTC