W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

RE: Section 1 of the New RDFa Syntax Draft ready for reviews

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:42:44 +0100
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852014A6BF5@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Michael Bolger" <michael@michaelbolger.net>
Cc: "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <peter.krantz@gmail.com>


Ivan, Michael,

I support Ivan's proposal of a separate WG Note.
If and when we start this activity I volunteer for
taking lead on it ;)

Cheers,
	Michael

BTW, I cc'd Peter, as he showed some interest regarding 
HTML5 and RDFa a while ago (not sure if you are subscribed
to the RDFa mailing list, Peter?).

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:18 AM
>To: Michael Bolger
>Cc: RDFa
>Subject: Re: Section 1 of the New RDFa Syntax Draft ready for reviews
>
>Sigh...:-(
>
>As an alternative...
>
>This document, as a Rec, defines an XHTML1 variant, ie, is based on 
>XHTML1. I am not sure it would be appropriate to discuss non XHTML1 
>issues *within the document* (let alone the fact that this would slow 
>down the progress of the document on Rec path).
>
>What about planning for a separate WG Note instead that would give 
>information on how these attributes can be used in a 
>non-XHTML1 setting. 
>Such an informative note would be of a great value... (I know that we 
>were playing of defining the attributes without any reference to any 
>host language; that note would be somewhere between the two).
>
>I guess the issue about HTML5 is the question of extensibility, ie, of 
>validation. (And I do not think there is a clear view on that in the 
>HTML group either.) *If* this issue is put aside, the RDFa 
>specification 
>could be used with (well, invalid) HTML5 documents when using HTML5's 
>XML serialization. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in 
>the process 
>description of the RDFa attributes that would be dependent on a 
>particular HTML in XML version, it just describes things in terms of a 
>DOM tree operation. I am not sure about the non-XML HTML5, simply 
>because I lack the necessary knowledge on how this is handled with no 
>DOM tree around...
>
>Just my 2 cents...
>
>Thanks
>
>Ivan
>
>Michael Bolger wrote:
>> 
>> I suggest a proactive approach toward a troubling
>> development concerning IE8 [1] [2], what effect
>> will it be if they fail to support XHTML?  Also with
>> HTML5 <!DOCTYPE html> [3]   + profile issues.
>> 
>> In Section 1 please include a brief , highly informative
>> (relationship) projection about HTML5, I want to
>> see the plan ahead, will all the work to create
>> XHTML+RDFa documents now; survive (etc.).
>> They might not make it through section 2.:)
>> 
>> 
>> [1] 
>> 
>http://realtech.burningbird.net/standards/bobbing-heads-and-the
>-ie8-meta-tag/ 
>> 
>> [2] http://www.molly.com/2008/01/24/me-ie8-and-microsoft-versioning/
>> [3] http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/
>> [4] http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv/
>> -interesting "once you create a new DOM element"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank You
>> Mike
>> 
>
>-- 
>
>Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 09:43:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2008 09:43:46 GMT