- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:09:06 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/29/2011 11:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> === Arguments not considered: >> >> Following are either direct quotes or paraphrases of arguments which >> were put forward which were not considered. >> >> Running examples from the OpenGraph Protocol site through the >> facebook linter shows that removing the prefix declaration has no >> effect but changing it prevents any properties from being recognised. >> Code inspection of some of the other tools indicates that there are >> clients in Python, PHP, Ruby and Java that depend on literal matching >> of the string "og:". >> >> No change proposal was put forward suggesting that all usages be >> migrated to fixed prefixes. Nor was there any evidence put forward >> that fixes to these tools would break content. The fact that these >> tools have bugs is uncontested but that, in itself, does not help >> identify the proposal that draws the weakest objections. > ... >> It would be important to know if Facebook's and Google's content >> consuming code could be made work with prebound prefixes for >> compatibility with legacy content that uses prefixes. >> >> We only consider proposals which actually were put forward. Neither >> change proposal proposed standardizing Facebook's or Google's prefixes. > > I object to these two arguments not being considered I just want to be clear, per the W3C process[1]: The word "objection" used alone has ordinary English connotations. - Sam Ruby [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:09:36 UTC