[wbs] response to 'ISSUE-120: Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology - Straw Poll for Objections'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'ISSUE-120: Use
of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology - Straw Poll for
Objections' (HTML Working Group) for Toby Inkster.



---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to simplify the RDFa-in-HTML
specification by removing features that are documented to be confusing to
users
----
We have a Change Proposal to simplify the RDFa-in-HTML specification by
removing features that are documented to be confusing to users. If you have
strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your
objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Objections: 
Most of my arguments against this proposal are best summed up in my
counter-proposal, as the dividing line between arguments *against* this,
and arguments *for* mine is slim.

In summary though: this proposal is based on the presumption that the use
of prefixes is too difficult and unfamiliar for the majority or at least a
large proportion of users. However the evidence for this claim is virtual
non-existent: some anecdotal stories about people having trouble using XML
namespaces (which are a related but not identical technology to CURIEs),
and a small informal usability study conducted on, as I understand it, only
six people.

Based on this dubitable evidence, the proposal suggests a change in
HTML+RDFa that would throw out compatibility with existing RDFa content,
with the XHTML+RDFa 1.0 Recommendation and with the draft XHTML+RDFa 1.1
specification.

I object to this proposal.




---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to clarify how prefixes work in RDFa,
and that they're an optional feature. 
----
We have a Change Proposal to clarify how prefixes work in RDFa, and that
they're an optional feature.  Keep in mind, you must actually state an
objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection
has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not
necessary to repeat it.
Objections: 
No objections obviously.


These answers were last modified on 17 March 2011 at 22:44:42 U.T.C.
by Toby Inkster

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-120-objection-poll/ until
2011-03-17.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 22:45:03 UTC