Re: GRDDL and HTML5

A wee bit unusually, I'm finding myself agreeing with DanC all the way here.

2008/8/25 Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>:
> 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.

Exactly. Negate that and you are disenfranchising the community you support.

> 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.

Zero extra for the producer or consumer, if they don't want it.
Shall we discard HTML5 because it took a lot of work?

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.

Think global Mr.H. All known goes a long way.

> 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

The GRDDL development process has always been on the table, clear for
all to see.
Maybe the Hix protesteth too much?

Cheers,
Danny.