- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:30:52 +0000
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Meant to forward this to public-rdfa-wg rather than public-rdfa... Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:48:01 +0000 From: webmaster@w3.org (WBS Mailer on behalf of tai@g5n.co.uk) To: tai@g5n.co.uk,www-archive@w3.org Subject: [wbs] response to 'ISSUE-118 Specification breaks semantics of existing link relations "index" and "first" - Straw Poll for Objections' The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'ISSUE-118 Specification breaks semantics of existing link relations "index" and "first" - Straw Poll for Objections' (HTML Working Group) for Toby Inkster. --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Create a well founded consolidation of the link types ---- We have a Change Proposal to change some link types to their pre-HTML5 meaning, but also change some other link relations to be synonyms and consolidate the set overall. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Objections: No objections. --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Simplify the incumbent rel="" model ---- We have a Change Proposal to simply some link relations relative to HTML4. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Objections: Strong objection. This changes the definitions of rel values (especially rel=index) from HTML4, introducing differences between how it's defined in HTML5 and how it's defined virtually everywhere else (HTML4, XHTML 1.x, RDFa and the IANA link registry). The proposal cites a single implementation as justification for the change. While I grant that this implementation is a major one, given that it's just one implementation, a small patch could bring it into line with the rest of the world. Wordpress has a history of security problems, so many of its users upgrade on a very frequent basis. Thus, if new releases of Wordpress were brought into line with the semantics of other implementations, data published using old releases would quickly diminish to insignificance. Wordpress also has a history of using outputting fairly good, semantically correct HTML. Thus if clear guidelines on which rel values are synonymous, which differ, and how they all should be used were included in the HTML5 specification, such as the guidelines summarised in the first change proposal, it seems likely that Wordpress' developers would be amenable to accepting such a patch. --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Drop support for certain rel="" values ---- We have a Change Proposal to drop support for certain rel entirely, based on lack of interest from users and implementors. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Objections: Weak objection. These semantics seem useful enough to keep in the specification. These answers were last modified on 9 December 2010 at 11:47:38 U.T.C. by Toby Inkster Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-118-objection-poll/ until 2010-12-16. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Saturday, 11 December 2010 11:31:18 UTC