W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2008

[whatwg] Generic Metadata Mechanisms (RDFa feedback summary wiki page)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:33:47 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0809110119300.30731@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Shannon wrote:
>
> I would like to restore the pros and cons.

I just merged the non-obvious ones into the text and removed the obvious 
ones. (Saying "Con: Proposal may be more complex" isn't helpful.) I don't 
think I removed any non-trivial ones, which ones did you have in mind? My 
apologies if I did remove anything non-trivial.


> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > 
> > 2.8 Choice of format
> > 
> > This section doesn't describe a requirement.
>
> Are you sure?

The section said "Choice of format: There are already several metadata 
formats. In the future there may be more", and that's not a requirement. A 
requirement is something that a proposal can be evaluated against. This 
isn't something that can be evaluated against, it's just an axis.

It's like "choice of height" as opposed to "must be at least 6ft tall" 
when discussing requirements for a shed.


> Perhaps you should be more precise about what makes something "required" 
> because by strict definition the only actual requirements for "generic 
> metadata" in HTML5 should be "it conveys metadata" and "it works in 
> HTML5".

HTML5 already has something that satisfies those requirements (the class 
attribute) so clearly (assuming HTML5 as written today isn't enough) there 
are more requirements than that, at least from the RDFa community.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 18:33:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:05 UTC