Re: RDFa example in the GRDDL primer.

* Fabien Gandon wrote:
>The GRDDL working group currently discusses the possibility to include 
>an RDFa Example [1] in a latter version of the GRDDL Primer [2].
>
>We would be extremely grateful to get your opinions, remarks, 
>corrections on this example [1] especially concerning points such as: 
>the stability of the RDFa syntax, the use of XHTML 1 vs XHTML 2 and the 
>availability of the profile attribute, the use of CURIES, etc.

>[1] http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/fabien/tmp/grddl/rdfaprimer/PrimerRDFaSection.html

Under the rules of the "XHTML Modularization" specifications you need
a XHTML document type that allows the construction of such a document
for this to be considered conforming in any way. Such a document type
does not and, as it stands, cannot exist. There are also a number of
rather odd things in that document, for example, <span> is a child of
<body> which is considered bad practise for about ten years now, and
the <span> includes a <dl>, which has never been allowed by any of the
HTML and XHTML specifications, and the <meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> suggests that you might want to
deliver this as text/html which is certainly not appropriate either.

I suggest that if the group is to include any such example, it should
conform to at least a published W3C Working Draft. It seems to me that
you think of "RDFa" as something it clearly ain't, so I'm not sure I
can suggest a good replacement for the example.
-- 
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, 14 September 2006 06:51:39 UTC