On Mar 4, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Ben Adida wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
If you have an interest in deploying it more widely, perhaps it would
make sense to design for wider deployment instead of designing for
XML
only.
And as you know, we are very much exploring the @prefix route
*because*
we're interested in HTML deployment. You've read me say this a dozen
times, so your arguments are now bordering on disingenuous. We're
looking into it, we're working on it, we're discussing with you and
others; I'm not going to have this argument again.
Before, you said that you're not trying to push an RDFa designed for
XML only into HTML as a done deal. But your comments here and
elsewhere sure make it seem that way. Earlier you described Henri's
proposals as "change for the sake of change" and referred to "an HTML
world view which is empirically incorrect". These do not seem like the
hallmarks of being open to feedback and change.
I'm not saying that you have to automatically agree with Henri's
comments. But a comparison of the technical merits of using @profile
vs. backing off of CURIEs would be more constructive than your current
approach, where you seem to be rejecting anything but your preferred
approach out of hand.
Regards,
Maciej
