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

Re: RDFa and Web Directions North 2009

From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:27:53 -0500
Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <74A9F61F-2E61-4E4C-A77F-E832AE2F5F90@la-grange.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

Le 18 févr. 2009 à 06:28, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
> Note that the Validator.nu HTML Parser currently exposes a XOM tree,  
> so a parser exposing XOM is not a theoretical construct. None of the  
> currently drafted HTML5 features need the change that exposing  
> xmlns:foo-based RDFa would require for consistency with the exposure  
> of xmlns:foo in XML.

I still don't get this. Could you explain?

Let's suppose, Gedanken experiment, that the few attributes (@content,  
@about, @property, @resource, @datatype, @typeof and xmlns:foo) needed  
for "validation talisman" [(c) hsivonen] are added to html5.

For example,

    xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" is declared

And in the document, there is

    <a rel="cc:license"
       >Creative Commons License</a>.

For validation, only html:a, html:rel, html:href matters. no?

An authoring help tool could go further, but on another layer, such as  
checking if the "cc:" in "cc:license" has been declared. We could also  
imagine a tool which once  the values have been extracted to create a  
graph, if the graph is valid. But all of that is not in the html5  
territory. It would be like trying to validate a jpeg image or even  
more the XMP content of a JPEG image.

I admit, I'm quite lost (putting aside the RDFa for declaring metadata  
as a solution and talking only about the DOM tree).

Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:28:08 UTC

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