W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:52:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4C408E30.9050808@aptest.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Mark,

Thanks for your comments.  My conclusions below:

On 7/16/2010 11:22 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> ...
> However, since there is no other way to do cross-domain profiles in a
> browser, without using techniques that are not yet widespread (CORS,
> postMessage(), etc.), then if we ignore JSONP we only put JSON on a
> par with HTML+RDFa -- we don't make it inferior.
>
> In other words, a JSON format for profiles is no less secure than an
> HTML+RDFa format if JSONP is taken out of the picture, whilst it's a
> lot quicker and simpler to obtain the prefix mappings from.
>    

I disagree.  It is only quicker and simpler in *some* contexts.  My 
parser doesn't have an in-built JSON parser.  It is, however, an RDFa 
parser already!  And it does a great job of extracting triples.  I can 
search those triples, extract the bits that I care about to learn about 
prefix declarations, term definitions, default vocabulary values, etc.  
It just works.  I recognize that in some environments there is an 
in-built JSON parser, and in those environments it would be potentially 
easier / quicker to extract the data from JSON.  But surely, even in 
those environments, parsing RDFa also just works.  If it didn't, the 
basic parser wouldn't work in the first place!

To sum up... I don't see a need for us to codify this.  I certainly 
don't see a need for us to mandate support of a JSON format for 
profiles.  It would be an added burden on 100% of profile authors for 
the benefit of a subset of parser developers.  Since profile authors 
should, by definition, outnumber parser developers, I think they should 
win.  Finally, (X)HTML+RDFa is a beneficial format for profiles because 
it ensures that they are not only machine readable, but also human 
readable.  This is a significant benefit for the CONSUMER of the 
profile.  And, in the end, that's our real audience here.  People who 
use profiles to author content.  They need to have their lives be made 
as easy as possible. Part of that ease of authoring/use is in being able 
to follow their nose, look at the profile in a web browser, and say 
"yes! this is what I need!  prefixes I will use.  terms that make sense 
in my document.".

For all these reasons, I am convinced that RDFa is the correct format to 
mandate for RDFa Profiles.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 16:52:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT