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: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:18:57 +0200
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, 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: <B3DED016-19E2-4AE3-B0FF-C0ACCC3A0572@iki.fi>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
On Feb 17, 2009, at 19:35, Ben Adida wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The technical issue with using Level 1 setters isn't as bad in  
>> browsers
>> as I had thought, but I disagree with your dismissal of the technical
>> issue (see the XOM and browser-internal cases above).
>
> I think we're getting a little closer, even if we're not going to  
> agree
> 100%. I'll take a look at the other issues you mention, though I don't
> think they're nearly as important, because I believe all of the APIs  
> you
> mention would likely need updating of a deeper kind for other HTML5
> changes anyways.

What other HTML5 changes do you mean? Can you give an example of an  
update that any of the APIs I mentioned would need for "other HTML5  
changes"?

I'm assuming that the following issues are marginal enough that they  
don't call for API changes:
  * Not providing full access to non-conforming elements and  
attributes. (xmlns:foo is currently in this bucket.)
  * Not providing high-fidelity access to non-XML characters (e.g.  
form feed and U+FFFF).
  * Not providing access to conforming "talismans" (xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml 
" is currently in this bucket).
  * Not providing full-fidelity access to comments (specifically, the  
substring "--" inside a comment).
  * Not providing full access doctype or the quirkiness status of the  
document. (Consumers that don't have expose DOM to scripts and don't  
have a CSS renderer don't need to care.)

> Would the entirety of DOM/API issues be solved if we added @prefix  
> support in both XHTML and HTML versions of RDFa, and relegated  
> xmlns:* only to XHTML1.0+RDFa?

Leaving xmlns:*-based CURIE prefixes around with some branding  
wouldn't solve the problem if people still wanted use software to  
consume content under that brand. (I care about what software needs to  
implement more than what branding you put on it.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:19:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:19:41 GMT