W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: GRDDL and HTML5

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:10:10 -0500
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-grddl-comments@w3.org" <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1219673410.4554.394.camel@pav.lan>

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:02 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
[...]
> To be honest I don't really understand the reluctance from the GRDDL 
> community here. profile="" doesn't work, people don't use it. Surely the 
> right thing to do is to take that into account and fix GRDDL to work with 
> real world content. Why would you want to cling to something that has 
> widely been ignored and will make it harder to use GRDDL on the Web?

The goal of GRDDL is not to scrape data out of pre-existing content
but to let people choose explicitly to put RDF data in their documents.

For that purpose, GRDDL and @profile work just fine.

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:20 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On the other hand, the price of keeping it is zero (or would have
> been, 
> > if we would have started with the existing HTML4 vocabulary).
> 
> The price of keeping it is not zero. Just look at the pain it has
> caused 
> the GRDDL effort. Instead of just automatically supporting all known 
> vocabularies, the GRDDL team has instead been misled into thinking
> that 
> having pages declare vocabularies is somehow better.

Mislead? What evidence leads you to that conclusion?
This is an explicit design choice.
See the "Faithful Renditions" section.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_rend


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 14:10:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:03 UTC