W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:19:06 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTim5UQsRdnOR+SoZzkjGzpQvpjw7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, www-archive@w3.org, public-rdfa@w3.org
On 11 April 2011 08:29, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 12:13 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Absolutely. If Facebook doesn't do it right, let's raise bug reports.
> Considering that the usual name droppees (Facebook, Yahoo! and Google)
> all failed to get it right, I suggest raising the bugs on RDFa itself
> for poor implementability.

Did Yahoo! get it wrong? I'd be surprised, they've got a good history
in this area.

Whatever, I suspect the limited implementations by Facebook and Google
at least reveal more about the culture of those companies than the
implementability of the spec. Looking at:
- there's a good selection of libraries for the various programming
languages, which presumably are based on the specs rather than any
proprietary application requirements.

Building any tool from scratch seems a perverse choice these days...
implementability of low-level support for any spec shouldn't really be
an issue.

But what I believe the RDFa folks should do is highlight the open
source libs with good spec conformance (and commercial-suitable
licenses) to help avoid future Facebooks and Googles falling into the
NIH trap.


Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 09:21:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:47 UTC