Good point, we should keep a certain sanity especially regarding data, since it affects all major clients, I recall to have mentioned that earlier;-)
Werner On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:46 AM, eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > > So I added 2 new properties to the devices, release year and pixel > > density. No real motive... > > The point is not the reason, not the "motive", the point is the manner. > We all appear to agree the Vocabulary needs a review and more, better > Properties, but let's not use "so I added..." as a method. > So, please stop adding properties before we reach consensus on their > need, format etc. > > With regard to release date, which I agree should be added, the > YYYY-mm -- it is a standard after all -- appears to be the consensus. > So, I have no objections to it being added in that format. > [I can provide release dates for existing devices -- where known] > > I'm not sure about the pixel density. Not so much the need to include > it, I can see that, but because of the fact that more 'similar' > Properties may be included in the big Data 2.0 update which is > planned. So, I'd say, if you must, include it [how many devices out of > a total of...] keeping in mind that its name and format [why not > include the unit of measure, for example] may change for 2.0. > > So : > Release date : yes please : YYYY-mm > Pixel density : yes...but better wait for 2.0 > > esjr > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUBkjKAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcZ3EH/jdNEftbHuD5B2vbiTrNaJ5m > BSzqvudSCC0PaMA58pi4xV0zn9EcuxmdkOu2zcy915hWTCk7KE97lhiyYLptFGnG > Rdzt6aPgLnf8wkH53daFaYCAbkLWPdeBmiOBtn9iN215LOo6d0bDbKSE4JqCxt3j > rWsGD49jr6T+VyRXBScWkjLIA0d1zDdzyRoZTh3kc2YMrYL1+WTAzXfpc0mYCV4q > pTSTIcHe1nbiJKvikuTZTCEiYyUGw2I0LXbl2a0KcfolbPr0amw38XJYoZEOl3G1 > IjR8Jagr/OAiOmlqL/prxflA3ISGIfIw2QUEnNBQPWrM+dH6nlYpv63Lj78JG2M= > =P44+ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
