[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0054 vcard email definition is inconsistent

Rachel Blackman rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Thu Sep 16 17:47:33 UTC 2004


>> I'm paranoid about implementing RDF in general.  Allowing so much 
>> flexibility
>> is good in theory, but think of the poor people who have to write 
>> GUIs to
>> display and edit this information, particularly when one fact could 
>> be written
>> a dozen different ways in full RDF.  They can't even agree on whether
>> rdf:about or rdf:resource is the proper attribute when listing 
>> information
>> about another resource. :-/
>
> So out JEPs should define some kind of guidelines or profiles for RDF
> usage. So the basic data (e.g. everything from current vcard-temp)
> should be written in a specific way, but the protocol would be still
> extensible.

If we start arbitrarily picking what RDF attributes and definitions to 
use before RDF settles on it for itself, won't that be more or less 
part of the same problem we have now with vcard-temp?  I.e., that the 
standard we borrowed from has moved on, and our little variant no 
longer bears a great deal of resemblance to it?  As in stpeter's quote 
"Looking at this again, I see that the JEP-0054 DTD is quite far out of 
line with the Dawson drafts and the damage is beyond repair."

-- 
Rachel 'Sparks' Blackman -- sysadmin, developer, mad scientist
"If it is not broken, give me five minutes to redesign it!"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20040916/45e9319f/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list