- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:09:03 +0100
- To: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Hi Manu (and Ben), > I see your argument: If they aren't going to use it, and if it doesn't > cause any harm, then why not put it in there? But that wasn't my argument. :) I was only trying to say that I don't think it is sufficient to argue against some feature or another by saying that the syntax is too difficult for novice authors, if the feature in question is something that we agree we need, and additionally, the feature is, by its nature, something that most authors will never see. That's very different to saying 'let's include anything and everything because authors will never see it'; I didn't say that. And it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't find an easier way of expressing something, if the use-case for the feature is clear, but the proposal needs some work. But on this particular issue we don't actually have any use-cases, so I'm not sure it's worth getting too hot under the collar about the syntax (which I don't like either ;) ) until we see if any emerge. I've never really liked the idea of giving a name to something that is anonymous, even in 'normal' RDF, but I'm happy to wait and see if someone comes up with an explanation for why we need this feature. To finish; the reason I made my point was because it seemed to me that there have been too many discussions where people think that it's enough to argue against a proposal by saying that some syntax 'is too complex'. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 17:09:06 UTC