Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type

Hey Ben...I don't hate you! :) I think I may have misunderstood what
exactly we're voting on though.

I would have voted happily for the resolution to use @class, and kept
my preference for @isA a guilty secret, until some future version. But
then Ivan also raised some doubts, and since I also knew that Steven
had reservations too, I thought it fair enough to chime in.

Regards,

Mark

On 28/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> You are tempting me to reopen the issue, since you are mostly voting for
> the status quo, but my chair responsibilities force me to refuse to fall
> for your smooth ways :) Let me re-frame my reasoning, because I believe
> this will be important for the principle of how we resolve other issues.
>
> @href anywhere was *not* resolved in May or in the Primer or in the
> talks. Adding @href everywhere does not create a moving target, it adds
> a new way to express triples that may otherwise be difficult to achieve.
> All existing RDFa in the Primer, in our examples, still work. All
> triples generated by Operator are still good (though some new ones may
> be missed if the spec was implemented very strictly.)
>
> If we take away @class, we break almost everything, including most of
> our successes to date. That's a big risk to take, and one we agreed we
> couldn't take anymore.
>
> So we're not just ratifying existing stuff only, but we must heavily
> lean towards not breaking big items, as we agreed on 5/31, with every
> core member of the task force on the call, minus Elias, who later
> expressed significant "moving target" worries in a separate discussion.
>
> I know, you must hate me right now, but that is the unfortunate destiny
>  of most W3C chairs, as I understand it :)
>
> -Ben
>
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > I'm not with you...are we trying to resolve all syntax issues in the
> > next two weeks, or just ratifying what we have? We could have avoided
> > a lot of discussion on '@href everywhere' if we were merely ratifying
> > what we already had, but people in the group seemed to think it was
> > actually important enough to discuss. (And I spent a long time trying
> > to find a compromise.)
> >
> > As before, I'm not saying I'm totally against sticking with @class,
> > even though I think @isA is slightly easier to understand. I'm only
> > saying that we don't need to be bounced into a conclusion simply on
> > the basis that it shouldn't be discussed. (Particularly when there
> > have been consistent objections from Steven all the way through.)
> >
> > I suggest we put it to a vote, and move on. :)
> >
> > If I could vote for the various positions, I would opt for:
> >
> >  +1 for a new attribute
> >  + 0.9 for using @class as we have it now :)
> >  -1 for using @role.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 28/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> >> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> >> > Hi Ben,
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure I agree. Sure we've done talks, but the main source of
> >> > information for people, going forward, will be the primer and our
> >> > various specs.
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> I need to be a bit of a stickler here, because we all talked about this
> >> in our May 31st conference call after all the May talks, and we agreed
> >> that we couldn't make RDFa a moving target:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/31-rdfa-minutes.html
> >>
> >> Removing the meaning of @class would make RDFa very much a moving
> >> target, and, no matter how technically beautiful an alternate solution
> >> is, we would lose a significant chunk of folks who are beginning to
> >> depend on the syntax.
> >>
> >> In other words, I think our "last chance" to change this particular,
> >> central RDFa issue has passed.
> >>
> >> -Ben
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 17:35:20 UTC