W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > February 2009

Re: RDFa and Web Directions North 2009

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:08:31 +0200
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-Id: <F72CEB9E-6DF1-4669-AC77-971C6AED5C60@iki.fi>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:42, Mark Birbeck wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  
> wrote:
>> The actual point is that the technical issues apply to text/html  
>> deployment
>> regardless of whether RDFa is 'officially' added to HTML 5.
> Right. And as a question of deployment, it is not something that the
> HTML5 spec-writers have the final say on; even if it were wildly
> difficult to create an RDFa parser in script (which it isn't, of
> course), that would still be something for implementers to make a
> decision about, not the HTML5 spec team.


However, regardless of what HTML5 spec writers say, it is very  
implementor-unfriendly to put stuff that is well known to be special  
in XML compared to HTML (xmlns:foo in this case) in a spec that you  
foresee as being deployed as text/html.

Why was RDFa specified to use xmlns:foo when it was obvious that  
people would want to deploy it as text/html and you should have known  
that HTML parsers handled xmlns:foo differently from XML parsers?

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 11:09:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:03 UTC