W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2005

Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 02:45:34 +0200
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <42bfcd01.89262843@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> You can find comments on XHTML 2.0's meta data module and 
>> RDF/A in the public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf and www-html(-editor) 
>> archives; I would not be surprised if the HTML Working Group 
>> decides to reject the SWBPD's re- quest to adopt RDF/A but I 
>> am unaware of publicly available information to this effect.
>I don't understand how you could arrive at that point...

Considering that the HTML Working Group did not publish anything since
22 July 2004 and is generally known to ignore most feedback, it is not
surprising that it did not receive much feedback on RDF/A yet. E.g.,


however discusses parts of the proposal (and the lack of responses to
issues from the HTML Working Group...) E.g. in


a reviewer seeks clarification on how the meta data features interact
with CSS or in


a reviewer seeks clarification on how the property="" attribute can
serve as a replacement for blocklevel and inline-level elements as
done for code/blockcode, quote/blockquote, div/span, etc. In


a reviewer fails to see the need to re-invent another metadata language 
for XHTML 2.0, and as pointed out earlier,


the SVG Working Group does not consider the XHTML 2.0 meta data module
a superior approach to their current widely-adopted approach to simply
use RDF/XML inside SVG graphics. I've repeatedly asked for clarification
on what the requirements are (and many people asked clarification on the
requirements for and design goals of XHTML 2.0 in general), how RDF/A
meets them, etc. and have pointed out many technical issues. In fact, it
seems that even the few RDF/A requirements I could find in the draft are


not met at all (and the issues are further explained in


and other messages). As the HTML Working Group so far ignored all this
feedback and as I consider any "collection of attributes for layering
RDF on XML languages" to have the same or similar fundamental flaws,
i.e., RDF/A cannot be fixed to meet its own requirements, it seems most
reasonable to expect the HTML Working Group to reject this proposal.

So this is more a matter of the HTML community failing to understand how
the HTML Working Group could consider adopting RDF/A in the first place.

>It's whole purpose was to try to find a solution to issues that have
>plagued the relationship between RDF and HTML over the years. We're
>all pretty excited about this, so it is certainly not going to be dropped!

Well, in


I've asked you to convince "us" that RDF/A constitutes an adequate
solution. This would naturally include clearly stating the problem,
explaining in detail how XHTML 2.0 addresses forward compatibility
and XHTML 2.0's extensibility model as requested in e.g.


and a discussion on how RDF/A is superior to other meta data proposals.
Even though it is unlikely that this would convince me, there is a
chance that some of the technical issues get resolved and some other
reviewers retract their objection to RDF/A which would help the HTML
Working Group when asking the Director to advance the document on the
Recommendation track.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 00:44:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:19 UTC