- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:11:57 -0700
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: Ben <ben@thatmustbe.me>, Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: [snip] >>> >>> Would there be any objections to this? >> Yes, there would be. I'm still waiting on an answer to what makes it >> "overly complex" and "messy". >> >> The two existing documents have been largely stable with minimal >> changes for months now. The two documents have been iterated on for >> over a year. Let's not waste time by revisiting conversations that >> were settled a year ago. If there are specific recommendations for >> things to be removed from either doc, folks should make the case for >> those specific edits as opposed to making less than helpful vague >> blanket statements. > > I would not take silence as a big +1. It may simply mean that folks > haven't implemented it yet. That is what we are trying to organize - > i.e. folks try implementing it, and then you'll have feedback. > That's not even remotely related to what I was saying, Harry. > Also, AS1.0's attempt to make a mega-vocabulary was one of the things > that killed it, as the world of social interaction is too big to fit > into a single vocabulary. That's why I think Activity Vocabulary should > go as an IG Note, to allow easy expansion. The process of updating a > Rec is much more difficult. AS 1.0 is dead? When did that happen? Again, if there are specific recommendations for things to remove from either doc, please open an issue to make specific edits. - James > > Otherwise, I see the IG having no useful purpose and recommend closing > it ASAP. > > cheers, > harry > > >> >> - James >
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 22:12:45 UTC