- From: Ryan King <ryan@technorati.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:06:57 -0700
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > 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. It does. Thanks. -ryan > [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 19:07:11 UTC