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

Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:11:26 -0400
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050519011126.GN7251@homer.w3.org>

* Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> [2005-05-19 02:45+0200]
> 
> * 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.,
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Sep/thread.html#5
> 
> however discusses parts of the proposal (and the lack of responses to
> issues from the HTML Working Group...) E.g. in
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Sep/0015.html
> 
> a reviewer seeks clarification on how the meta data features interact
> with CSS or in
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Sep/0013.html
> 
> 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
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Sep/0100.html
> 
> a reviewer fails to see the need to re-invent another metadata language 
> for XHTML 2.0, and as pointed out earlier,
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2005/04/Tiny12DoC.html#T015
> 
> 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
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2004OctDec/0042
> 
> not met at all (and the issues are further explained in
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2004JulSep/0135
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2004JulSep/0125
> 
> 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
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005Jan/0089.html
> 
> 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.
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2004JulSep/0042
> 
> 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.

Did you not see http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html ? Perhaps it
should be cited more prominently from the Working Draft? 

Also http://www.w3.org/2003/08/rdf-in-xhtml-charter.html

http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/ discusses some details...

I do agree that a response from the HTML WG to your review comments 
would be in order.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 01:11:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT