- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:50:55 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On 29 April 2016 at 14:36, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > 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. It's 2016! Nobody reads stuff any more :) I realise this is the 2nd time I've asked, and 2nd time I got that response. I'll be back in 2-3 years next time I get confused about this... cheers (and thanks for the handy tool(s)), Dan > 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happens to me very often to hit pages that are really old, like answers to questions that come from 2000 and completely outdated by now.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 > > > >
Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 14:51:26 UTC