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

Re: ISSUE-1: Format of the profile document

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:17:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4B9C0104.7010900@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/11/2010 02:05 PM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:22 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> A key point to make is that although RDFa would be the only format that
> parsers would be required to implement support for, they would also be
> free to support other formats.
> 
> Profile publishers would not be mandated to publish the profile in RDFa,
> but any that care about interoperability would. They could choose to
> publish the profile in multiple formats using content negotiation.

Exactly right. This leaves the door open for innovation in new RDFa
profile document markup mechanisms, but ensures a basic level of
interoperability between all RDFa processors.

-- 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 Saturday, 13 March 2010 21:18:29 GMT

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