- From: Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@w3future.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:56:37 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- CC: www-html@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Sjoerd, > > >>Mark Birbeck wrote: >> >>>Personally I would prefer to see a syntax for URIs that copes with >>>both QNames and URIs in the same attribute--it's what I'd >> >>hoped when I >> >>>first started work on RDF/A, and is in effect what N3 does. Then it >>>ceases to be the responsibility of the mark-up, and moves >> >>to the realm >> >>>of the attribute processing. >> >>Why not actually adopt N3 for HTML? >>Then the about, rel, rev, property, role and resource >>attributes can either be a qname, or a uri inside <>, or a >>literal or an anonymous node etc. > > > I'd always hoped it would be possible to come up with a syntax that would do > this. The problem with using N3 specifically is that it uses '<' and '>' on > URIs, which does get a bit awkward in XML documents--but I do agree with you > that the principle is there. I think actually using N3, instead of a solution based on N3, has some extra advantages. First, it allows you to use the full power of RDF in HTML. Take f.e. collections, which would become a big mess of link and/or meta elements with the current attributes. Secondly it will make more people aware of N3. N3 is a very pretty syntax, and it could improve the image of RDF. Thirdly, it will improve the chances of microformats using RDF. At some point, microformats will require more than some simple attributes, and someone will invent some syntax to put more information into one attribute. If full N3 is already available in XHTML2, it is likely that people will push to use the standard N3, instead of a proprietary syntax. -- Sjoerd Visscher http://w3future.com/weblog/
Received on Friday, 10 June 2005 07:56:48 UTC