Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Mark Birbeck: >> But the attributes in RDFa are not prefixed -- @about, @resource, >> @datatype and @content are new attributes, whilst @rel, @rev, @href >> and @src already exist > > At a wild guess, this is the heart of the technical disagreement: > The additional 4 attributes might cost too much for people who do not need or want or gain benefit from RDFa. The implementation cost of these attributes is zero: recipients are not required to do anything with them. Documenting them (in tutorials, books...) is not free, but then, if you aren't interested in them, why document them? > Might it be possible to carry the same information within HTML5 without imposing the cost on people who don't need it. Could you clarify what precisely that cost is? > Are there extension points that could be used? > If the cost for non RDFa people is 0, then it gives the RDFa community space to demonstrate value with running code and deployed apps. > > > e.g. could these additional attributes be included in a script data block element? > > <script type="text/rdfa"> > about="http://example.org" > datatype="xsd:int" > </script> Are you suggesting that only putting the attributes on <script> somehow changes costs? How so? > ... BR, JulianReceived on Saturday, 14 February 2009 09:23:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 February 2009 09:23:04 GMT