- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:13:06 +0200
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Feb 20, 2009, at 04:39, Ben Adida wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Also, if RDFa turned out to be successful in text/html (with or >> without >> a blessing by the HTML 5 spec), we'd be left with syntactic >> complexity >> in the platform. In particular, if RDFa succeeds for a couple of use >> cases and fails in general (or succeeds otherwise in far down the >> long >> tail of use cases), the important use cases would be stuck with >> complex >> syntax. >> >> I'm particularly worried about ccREL succeeding to the point that an >> alternative solution can no longer be launched into the market to >> replace it and Free Culture then getting encumbered by the syntactic >> complexity preventing even further success. > > Your initial concerns were: > a) indirection is too hard for most users, and > b) URIs are bad architecturally > > If RDFa and ccREL are successful, doesn't that imply that your initial > concerns, both (a) and (b), were wrong? If either (a) or (b) were > true, > widespread success would be unattainable. Note that I didn't talk about unqualified success in the part you quoted. Just about qualified success to the point where an alternative solution (which if deployed first would have taken Free Culture licensing metadata to its Full Potential) could no longer be launched into the market. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 10:13:51 UTC