phil ringnalda

regarding the str: module: I was young, I was foolish, I needed the money… I’m changing the spec…

In other words they aren’t implementing Bill Kearney’s vision in the RDF working group.

That’s a troll if I ever saw one.

The non-use of rdf:resource for dc:idetifier and mod_email are actually mistakes — they should use rdf:resource.

If the value of the Dublin Core element is a resource which has a URI rather than plain text, it should be recorded in the value of the rdf:resource attribute on the tag, with empty tag content. — http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-xml/

Dern tootin’ it’s a troll. My idea for peaceful coexistence has been hijacked and turned into a power grab, and in over 100 comments I’m pretty sure that not one person has even said that it was a good but impractical in the current climate idea. I’m a whole lot madder about it than you would guess, so I chose to point at the mud on your fins, whether or not it helps my own swimming.

Oh, or did you not mean me? ;)

And with the deepest heartfelt wishes, I thank you for pointing out the mud on our fins! :)

How I’m glad I didn’t put mud on my fins by participating in the mud slinging around RDF, RSS, Dave Winer, and the knights who say ’Nee’… :D

As Ben has commented in the mailing list and in correspondence, the stream module is in need of work. Many modules; their docs especially, could use some work.

Taxo uses link for backward compatibility. Taxo is a great example of module docs that make you go ”huh?”

There’s little discussion in the archives about the aggregation module. It’s goal, back in August 2000, was apparently to allow indicating what other source an item may have come from. Given that item link handling was/is done in element contents, for backwards compatibility, it’s not unusual to see this format used here.

Oh and Dave, if trolling is all you can come up with, save the bytes.

I wasn’t trolling merely observing that Bill Kearney is an idiot.

And before you threaten to sue me again, or explain yourself, the facts speak for themselves. You said someone (I think me) lacked vision. But you lacked the discipline to even check if your vision was being implemented by the visionaries you hold up as shining examples. So if that isn’t total lunacy I don’t know what is.

Okay, before anyone reams me, I apologize.

This has been a long drawn out debate, over not very much. And I think we’ve been led around in circles, and I don’t think people have leveled with the rest of us. Regardless, I’m sorry.

We’re going to make a decision here in just a few more days. If the RDF group wants to come up with something that’s fine, but do it soon. We have users waiting for a solution, and already have coded a solution.

Damn, but this has been a long, drawn out, process: I completely forgot that the dual syntax wasn’t actually my idea, it was Morten’s (though at this point, I’m not sure he’ll thank me for remembering and pointing it out).

Phil: No problem, but remember that the suggestion was in the early phase of this discussion, where there were comments like ”This could be a first experience at really working together, with no flames.” – I thought I was offering a sort of olive branch(TM).

You see, I (still) think that the semantic issues are much more important than element syntax, so if we could begin by agreeing on what something means, the problems we are having will eventually go away.

That said, I really don’t mind being wrong, corrected or convinced of a better alternative, and it does seem like a better idea with a unified syntax in the long run.