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

Re: Late, but I have reservations.

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <100870.72400.qm@web33614.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Sun, 7/20/08, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> The syntax of RDFa certainly *differs* from the above, but
> as far as  
> I know there aren't any situations where the
> differences cause  
> problems. 

AFAIK, the different-from-qualified-xml names in both DC and GRDDL are to reinforce the idea that the names are not really in the namespace the prefix indicates, but rather in the xhtml namespace.  If this confuses, I think it's a problem.

> Persons are one of the key classes of user RDFa is aimed
> at. ;-)
> If you publish personal data on the wild, wild web, then
> you really  
> shouldn't have any expectation of privacy with regard
> to those data.  
> That is true with or without RDFa.

I realize that, when your examples are personal blogs, etc.  What did you think of my solution (in the PDF)?

Further, if Persons are a key class of user, what purpose is served by allowing RDFa in the <head>?  The meta data in the <head> should be reserved for computer magic tricks, not connectivity code between two humans neither of which (mostly) ever see the <head>.


Received on Monday, 21 July 2008 22:46:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:28 UTC