RE: Normative vs Informative

> I haven't expressed a philosophical position about anything. Of course, 
> you are 100% entitle to your subjective opinions.

No?

> Again, please perform a modicum of research before jumping to 
> conclusion. At least do that. I does help when you have a rich context 
> en route to jumping to conclusions.

I saw your e-mail, I responded to it. The only conclusions I drew were based on what I’ve seen. You send a lot of e-mail to the list, and it’s entirely likely that I missed some. I picked up on the most recent thread.

> 1. Submit an ISSUE along the lines of "Support for HTML+Microdata 
> profiles as part of WebID would be advantageous", so that there can be 
> formal debate (on merit) and vote on it (my take? if we're doing RDFa 
> 1.1, I can't think of a good reason why not, the below notwithstanding)
>
> 2. Spec how a WebID profile graph would look serialised in terms of 
> Microdata
>

> Again, as per my comment re. research. You should have seen that I sent 
> a Microdata example over the weekend. I didn't just send a Microdata 
> example I sent an example two graphs, one in html+microdata form and the 
> other in xhtml+rdfa.

Excellent. Now it needs to be turned into something which fits with the spec, don’t you agree? But also *the other points*, because they are really really important if you want WebID applications to handle Microdata profiles.

> I have nothing more to add since you clearly believe:

> 1. I haven't implemented anything

Not in the slightest bit true; I simply stated the four things which, as far as I can see, need to happen for you to achieve what you’re saying you want to, and indicated that your demands are not representative of everybody wishing to implement WebID.

> 2. I have nothing better to do with my time than curb Henry's dangerous 
> tendencies re. making WebID more inclusive and accomodating.

Complaining about “Henry’s dangerous tendencies” is not constructive and is most definitely philosophical ranting. Please cease.

> If WebID was about Henry, I would have kissed it goodbye this weekend. 
> And certainly after this post. Unfortunately, as I've stated repeatedly, 
> it isn't about Henry or I. It's about solving a serious problem by 
> leveraging the in-built architecture of the World Wide Web where RDF is 
> an option.

Enough with the “leveraging architecture” waffle. PLEASE. Focus on the _technical issues_. The above paragraph is entirely representative of all of the things I’ve been talking about which are simply not helpful in us *all* getting what we want out of WebID.

> I am moving on, you'll come to understand my concerns in due course, 
> that I am 100% certain about.

Be 100% certain all you like, but I think you’ll find you don’t speak for my interests. Nobody asked you to “move on” — in fact, nobody asked you to do anything but drop the rhetoric.

> BTW -- can I have some links to WebID compliant stuff you've implemented?

If I had links to share I would’ve already — what I have isn’t public (because it’s tied into other applications), and certainly isn’t stable (the latter in part because it’s been waiting on solid specifications). Does that somehow make the points I’m making irrelevant?

M.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.