W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Two thoughts on Turtle

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:21:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPqY83zeATs8BW-7nk5GijdPK5Ts5redFPw6pth70-Tkz6FxnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> Especially coming out of the schema.org debates, there are two things
> I'd like to see, if we can get them to work out.
>
> 1.  Turtle-in-HTML.
>
> I think it's standard-compliant right now to publish RDF in HTML like
> this:
>
>        <script type="text/turtle">
>        @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>.
>        <http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/data#Sandro_Hawke> foaf:name
>        "Sandro Hawke".
>        </script>
>
> See [1].
>
> But I would like to make sure our Turtle spec makes that clear, and
> perhaps we can address some questions about base and relative URIs, and
> other issues that might arise in having multiple Turtle blocks at the
> same URL.
>

For better or worse the Turtle spec itself now does this. There hasn't
been any text added at this point, but the document is now an example
of embedding Turtle in HTML. (Yes, HTML, not XHTML) Was at least
easier to write the examples, and test that they are valid Turtle. Not
sure what we need to say about this idea in the text, seems more like
a practice then something that needs specific
implementation/specification?

--Gavin
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 21:22:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT