Re: RDFa reliance on namespace declaration

Le 06-06-19 à 15:26, Mark Birbeck a écrit :
> Not true, at all Karl.

hmmm. I will be very happy to not be right.

> Much of RDFa will work in both HTML and XHTML. However, if you want to
> make statements that have global relevance (i.e., use more of RDF)
> then you will need to use namespaces, which of course requires an
> XML-based language.

When I sent this
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jun/0022

You replied with
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jun/0024

which is very limited and nothing new with what HTML 4.01 already  
does. You said it yourself

	[[[
	But that does not affect the key point which is
	that RDFa's use of @rel and @rev is *already standard*,
	and what's more *preserves* rather than overriding
	that standard.
	]]]

It's not RDFa it's simple HTML 4.01, or I have missed something.


After you gave examples with  "about" attribute that is not valid  
HTML 4.01. Step 3 and 4 are not usable in HTML 4.01. You said it:

	[[[
	These steps take us out of standard HTML territory,
	but are easily added with XHTML 1.1 modules.
	]]]

It's not easy for simple Web authors :)


> Ian's point is that any XML-based language should not use QNames
> within the *content* since the namespace prefixes can be lost or
> changed. I've shown that in general this is  either not the case, or
> it happens in certain circumstance that a stylesheet author can avoid.

class="dc:title" is not a namespace. It's just practical :) I have  
used it in the past in my own html. And it's easy to style with

	.dc\:title {}

but certainly awkward for many people, then prone to errors.

> In addition, it's worth pointing out that Ian's "copy-and-paste" blog
> won't actually solve the problem, since we could have an XSLT file
> that uses a @rel="schema.xx" statement that contradicts a different
> "schema.xx" already in the source document. Of course to resolve that
> we'd have to define a scoping mechanism...but we seem to be
> reinventing XML namespaces.

Agreed that is the reinvention of the namespaces. BUT as you said  
"XML namespaces", HTML 4.01 is hardly XML ;) There are two sides of  
this about this one which is about technology and another one which  
is about Web community.

In terms of Web community, I often heard people who were impatient  
about using RDFa if it could be used in HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0.
Another side of the Web community will say, let's move to XHTML 2.0  
and then have the full potential of XML.

The problem here is that there is not only one community online.  
Let's say that the community of Desktop Web browsers/services with  
APIs/Weblogs etc is more in favor of HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0 and maybe a  
successor like Web App 1.0, when the community of Mobile, Heavy XML  
users are attracted by the benefits of XML. :)

Not simple to solve.




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 07:10:26 UTC