Re: Retiring RDFa 1.0 distiller?

I made it much more visible (reload, because the CSS file has changed)

I.

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:50, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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happens to me very often to hit pages that are really old, like answers to questions that come from 2000 and completely outdated by now.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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


----
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