Re: Retiring RDFa 1.0 distiller?

Well… the first sentence on the page says so:-) I can make it larger and more visible of course. But there may still be people out there using RDFa 1.0:-), ie, I am not sure 'retiring' it (ie, removing all functionalities) is the thing to do.

Ivan

P.S. B.t.w., it is, in fact, a bit Google's fault;-) It happens to me very often to hit pages that are really old, like answers to questions that come from 2000 and completely outdated by now. I wonder how does one control the timing of these things.


> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:31, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Maybe this is Google's fault for ranking the old (popularly linked?)
> one first? But if I search for: rdfa distiller ... I get your 1.0 one
> first, and only if/when it fails do I realise that I should've checked
> and gone to the v1.1 version instead. Would you consider retiring it
> and making it more explicit that most people in 2016 will want to be
> using v1.1? I'm sure I can't be the only one finding the older tool
> and using it accidentally...
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/
> vs
> https://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704