W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Some comments re: microformats

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:56:49 -0400
Message-ID: <46787B51.7000805@ibiblio.org>
To: Ryan King <ryan@technorati.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org

Ryan, I just added (somewhat off the top of my head) a paragraph to the
Primer that I hope addresses your review [1]. It is as follows:


"Microformat-enabled web-pages on the Web may not be  valid XHTML. For
this purpose, one may wish to use <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-scenarios/#html_tidy_use_case">a
program like Tidy (or some other algorithm) to make the web-page
equivalent to valid XHTML</a> before applying GRDDL <a
href="#GRDDL-SCENARIOS">[GRDDL-SCENARIOS]</a>.  Also, many microformats
may not have profiles with transformations. A user can always take
matters into their own hands  by applying <a
href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/CustomRdfDialects">a GRDDL transformation
for a microformat</a> directly to the web page in order to get RDF. This
is risky since if the author of the document or microformat vocabulary
does not explicitly license a GRDDL transformation, the responsibility
for those RDF is now in the hands of the user."

I also think the phrasing addresses the concerns DanC had about people
running non-licensed GRDDL transforms.

Please tell me if this paragraph addresses your concerns.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html#scheduling

Ryan King wrote:
>
> Promted by Harry's message to microformats-discuss[1], I'd like make a
> few comments. Part of the group's charter calls for interoperability
> with microformats. As an active member of the community around
> microformats.org, I'd like to review the specification from that
> perspective.
>
> Here are a few issues/comments I'd like to make:
>
> 1. tagsoup? html?
>
> The spec describes how to apply a transformation from "Valid XHTML",
> but fails to define any way to deal with other content on the web.
> Given that the majority of the web is something other than "Valid
> XHTML" [2], this spec doesn't seem to be very useful on the Web.
>
> There also doesn't appear to be any normative way to deal with non XML
> HTML (like HTML 4, for example).
>
> Unfortunately, this appears to be out of scope for for the group's
> charter[3]:
>
>> It binds XML documents, especially XHTML documents, XHTML profiles
>> and XML namespace documents
>
> and there's not mention of a requirement to work with existing content
> on the web, so I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this
> stage.
>
> 2. profiles, editing <head>
>
> AFAICT from my reading of the spec, authors producing content to be
> consumed via GRDDL will need to add a profile uri to the <head> of
> their XHTML documents.
>
> This requirement will reduce the compatibility with existing
> microformats content on the web. Most content does not have a profile.
>
> Also, there are many web authors for whom editing the <head> of their
> documents is either prohibited or much more difficult than adding
> content in the <body>
>
> Lastly, the current HTML5 draft removes @profile. Of course, this is
> just a draft and things may change, but there doesn't appear to be a
> story about future compatibility here.
>
> -ryan
>
> 1.
> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-May/009624.html
>
>
> 2. I can't find the reference but Ian Hickson did a study at google
> which showed that more than 90% of page on the web had lexical level
> validity issues. Most of the web is not well formed, much less
> conformant XHTML
>
> 3. http://www.w3.org/2006/07/grddl-charter.html
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 00:57:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:43 GMT