Ben Adida wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Before I agree, let me give my perspective. People are going to use >> RDFa in HTML, and as such I feel that such usage should be documented, >> test suites set up, and libraries made to interoperate, yadda, yadda, >> yadda. I don't happen to agree that that work as largely done. >> > > I agree that this should be done. It's not done yet, but it's well on > its way (and the work on RDFa in XHTML1.1 is of course a huge help in this.) > > >> Talking specifically about a "RDFa in HTML" draft, I don't see how >> anybody can take a position that microdata is in scope for the HTML WG >> and RDFa in HTML is not. >> > > Well, Henri did just that in his blog post, and Ian clearly thinks that. > Therein lies the problem. We want to work on RDFa and address real use > cases without being dependent on Ian. Sure, joint work can happen to > enable RDFa in HTML5, but since HTML5 is willing to ignore what Google, > Yahoo, CC, the UK government, and many others are doing, then *some* > group needs to take on that work. That's the point of the RDFa IG. > > -Ben > > > I hope you all don't mind me butting into this discussion. I doubt that the microdata section will live to see final publication, but I don't see whether it will or won't will impact on whether RDFa is incorporated into HTML 5. Just giving my two cents worth, but I can't help thinking a separate group focused on providing a RDFa in HTML 5 document would ultimately be the better course anyway. The problem is that the conformance language of HTML 5 is such that even if you work through some of the technical issues, using RDFa within HTML 5 (either served as XML or not) will not be "conformant". So perhaps what's really needed is a three prong approach: work on a separate spec/doc about RDFa in HTML 5, work to get the microdata section removed from HTML 5 (should happen regardless of RDFa), and work to eliminate the "not defined here therefore it's non-conformant" language from the HTML 5 specification. ShelleyReceived on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:51:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 July 2009 20:51:58 GMT