On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:44 -0500, Ben Adida wrote: > > Ivan, > > I think I disagree with you on this point. > > Ivan Herman wrote: > > I think that people amy contest the validity of this use case, at least > > the way it is formulated in terms of 'blogging'. > > This is actually a very important goal: to have a blogging use case. I also think structured blogging is an important use case; perhaps I read Ivan's comment too quickly, but I don't see an argument for not talking about structured blogging in an RDFa use case document. It's not like this is only a theoretical possibility... people are doing this already, more or less. My grddl bookmarks include several examples of this; some are RDFa and some are GRDDL and some are both... http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2007/01/generating_rdfa_from_movable_t.html http://code.google.com/p/brightcontent/ http://dezinformacja.org/tarpit/archiwum/erdf_w_blogu -- http://del.icio.us/connolly/grddl?setcount=100 p.s. can we please not rely on use case numbers in email subject headers? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Tuesday, 30 January 2007 15:59:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:03 GMT