W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > December 2006

Re: GRDDL + microformats economics-of-deployment use case

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:09:35 -0500
Message-ID: <45881CCF.9070101@adida.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>


A few points:

Dan Connolly wrote:
>    (maybe she copies and pastes some hFAQ markup
>    without copying the profile URI; that's a risk, but
>    it also applies to RDFa namespace declarations.)

In a lot of cases, Alice has no control over the HEAD of the document.
Consider widgets like those added to Google's "my page" or any other
similar "personal homepage" web app. Or consider hosted blogging, where
you only control some chunk of the body.

I think it's fair to say that copying-and-pasting a single block of HTML
is within reach of most people (it works for CC), but copying and
pasting a block plus modifying the HEAD is actually quite a bit less
likely, under your assumption that Alice isn't thinking very hard about
this stuff.

>    (maybe Alice doesn't make well-formed XHTML; that's
>     a risk; but it applies equally to RDFa, and the
>     same class of solutions apply: tidy, etc.)

RDFa is specified as a function of the HTML DOM, so in fact it should be
relatively easy to adapt to tag-soup HTML. With the shift in HTML
charter strategy, we're shifting a bit, too, to make sure you can do
RDFa without XSLT and thus without tidy.

> I think there are enough Alices in the world to deploy
> new dialects with GRDDL; I wonder if there are enough Susans
> to deploy them with RDFa.

If the use case says that GRDDL is easier than RDFa, I disagree. If it's
meant to show how someone might do microformats deployment, then sure,
sounds good.

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 17:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:09 UTC