Re: Ongoing objection to RDFa Profiles format (as XHTML+RDFa)

Hi Ivan,

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> I am sorry but these things have already been discussed, and the WG has
> decided to go along the lines it has now. I do not see any new information
> here, ie, no argument that has not been discussed before. Reopening a closed
> issue is really not a good way forward.

As you rightly say the issue was resolved by the WG some months ago.
However, I never supported the original resolution:

  <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-04-15#resolution_3>

and I'm afraid I can't support it now. I'm not really sure what people
expect me to do, since I didn't say I could live with this -- I said I
oppose it.

For me this is particularly compounded by the fact that I've yet to
see a decent argument in favour of using RDF to express the prefix
mappings (as opposed to name/value pairs as is done in N3, SPARQL,
RDF/XML, and so on); you say that "these things have already been
discussed", but I don't feel the discussion really nailed this.

Anyway, I felt it only fair the other day to mention to Manu that I
would raise the issue at last call, and that's why it has reappeared
on the list.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 18:31:31 UTC