- From: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:21:22 +0900
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>, www-tag@w3.org
I accidently moved the discussion off-line, sorry about that. > I wasn't trying to argue the merits of the proposal (as Tim did, which > is fine), I was just trying to make sure I understood it. And it > sounds like what I thought was true, which is that it would deprecate > huge amounts of deployed RDF, and incompatibly change previously > provided advice. That's coherent, and it's fine to propose (the same > objection has been raised before, so you're not alone), but in my > opinion any proposal that would do this ought to be transparent and > list such a consequence under "negative effects" or "risks". I concur that previous advice has to be changed and I'll add this as a negative effect. I don't think deployed RDF will break though. That discussion continues in a separate thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Mar/0120.html Tore _______________________________________________________________ Tore Eriksson [tore.eriksson at po.rd.taisho.co.jp]
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 01:22:09 UTC