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

Re: Late, but I have reservations.

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:14:45 -0700
Message-ID: <488D0F75.90308@adida.net>
To: gannon_dick@yahoo.com
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Gannon Dick wrote:
> I have no problem with structured data.  HTML is structured data:
> <head> and <body>.  I see the use of RDFa in the <head> a much
> different case than the use of RDFa in the <body>.  The specific
> threat RDFa enables is data injection either just before or after
> service.

Data injection by whom? To what end? Who gets hurt by this "injection?" 
Who is the attacker and who is the victim?

Take a situation as follows:

   <head>
     <!-- a bunch of RDFa -->
   </head>

and the following situation:

   <head>
     <link rel="alternate" href="some-rdf.xml" />
   </head>

What's different about these two situations? What mischief is enabled by 
the RDFa case that isn't already enabled by the <link rel> case?

> I would recommend leaving RDFa technology out of the <head> of HTML
> however, because I can not see any audience benefits to
> counterbalance the potential mischief.

There are plenty of benefits to RDFa in the <head>, actually. Bob 
DuCharme has outlined a number of them on this list in the past, in 
particular regarding content annotation for content management systems.

I still don't see the mischief you're talking about. Please give us a 
more detailed use case, maybe a precise example of how someone might get 
harmed, and by whom. I'm particularly confused by who's doing the 
"injection".

Thanks,

-Ben
Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 00:15:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 July 2008 00:15:29 GMT