Re: ReSpec toolchain...

On July 15, 2014 at 11:45:52 AM, Shane McCarron (shane@aptest.com) wrote:
> I very much doubt that search engines are not taking the many many seconds
> to run respec on a page so that they can extract the content. Regardless,
> there is no need to place that kind of burden on the network or our
> constituents. Recommendations are NOT living standards. Recommendations
> are stable documents and must remain so.

Go look at the XML spec and how many revisions it went through - pretending that those 5 (five!!!) recs revisions are not indicative of a living model is... well, delusional. So "stable"(tm), right :P 

Also, HTML is a living standard. The W3C can pretend that it's not all it wants by copy/pasting from the WHATWG one, but still doesn't change the fact that it's a living standard. 

> If you don't believe it, go ask
> Tim. I am sure he can explain it.

Argument from authority - irrelevant. 

Also, Tim doesn't work on specs or implement specs, so I don't see how his opinion carries more weight than anyone else's. Also, we can drag him into this if you want. I'm sure he will have to agree with me - I don't see what choice he has given the reality of the situation and history. 

> Moreover, without a static version things like Googlebot will not be able
> to get at the lovely RDFa that makes our specifications that much more
> parseable.

I assume here you are joking, right?

Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 17:39:07 UTC