W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > March 2010

Re: rev and the costs of inverses/aliases in SPARQL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:00:09 -0600
To: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-sparql-dev <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1268064009.3952.5999.camel@pav.lan>
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:37 +0100, Steven Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:00:42 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> > Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away?
> > Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share?
> Of course we would! Removing @rev from HTML5 is one of the worst examples  
> of cow-path design: apparently on the web, @rev is "hardly ever used" and  
> so therefore should be removed, whether or not anyone has a use case for  
> it.
> But in any case, authors do need it, they do use it, and @rev will always  
> be in RDFa, so the question is moot in a way.

Could you give more details about who you mean when you say "we"?

I can see your personal opinion, and I share it, but I'm trying to find
out more detailed experience reports.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 16:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:45 UTC