- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:32:14 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
2010/1/15 Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>: > I think optional features are, in general, a bad idea. > They are technically flawed solutions to political problems. > If there is not consensus that a feature should be in, then it is > non-standard, and should not be included. > > See > http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#option > "The greatest way to undo the utility of a specification is with too many > optional features." I don't disagree, certainly valid if starting from scratch - but given the current status of RDF, with baggage that people could maybe do without, I suspect "optional" might be appropriate. If e.g. RDF reification was dropped from the spec tomorrow, hard line, it's fairly likely that it would break someone's setup. The quiet deprecation thing again, I guess. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:32:47 UTC