- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:27:22 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Manu, On 14 Sep 2011, at 02:54, Manu Sporny wrote: [snippety snip] > So at this point, we need a compelling use case that would outweigh the fairly large implementation burden for a feature like @itemref. We are also very concerned that allowing multiple subjects in @about would be very confusing to authors. > > What are your thoughts on this Jeni? @itemref is helpful in a few scenarios, but it seems as if the trade-offs are not worth it to the Working Group. Do you have anything else to add? If there is no new evidence, the WG will probably close the issue due to the technical complexity and the lack of compelling use cases. I understand the trade-offs and appreciate you taking time to look at this. I'm going to try to find use cases for you, if there are some. I wonder if you could hold the issue open for a while? If I don't manage to dig any out, then obviously it's fine to close the issue, but I'd like to get some input from others rather than make up use cases myself that may be based on false assumptions. Thanks, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 19:27:54 UTC