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

ISSUE-1: Format of the profile document

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:22:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4B9926EF.3090905@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
"The profile document is marked up in RDFa, using a vocabulary designed
to modify the behavior of the RDFa Processor."

I said that we may have consensus on this, but I believe that Mark may
disagree on this point since he is making the argument for marking up
the document in JSON/JSONP.

It was discussed today that we could allow that as an option for
implementers, but the only profile document format that would be
required by the specification would be a document expressed in RDFa.

This still means that one could use XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, SVG+RDFa or
even perhaps ODF+RDFa. The key point being that it should be expressed
in RDFa and not JSON/JSONP for the following reasons:

* Security concerns with executing remote Javascript documents
  in the browser.
* CORS will eventually address the remote document loading issue.
* The RDFa DOM API must address the remote document loading issue.

Does anyone still support the markup of RDFa Profiles documents in
JSON/JSONP?

If we did a straw-poll, would anyone support expressing the profile
document in JSON/JSONP as the primary way vocabulary maintainers should
express RDFa profiles? If so, why?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 17:23:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT