- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:27:48 +0100
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: public-rdfa@w3.org, "foaf-dev Friend of a" <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, lorrie@cs.cmu.edu, "Renato Iannella" <renato@nicta.com.au>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:17:57 +0100, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > On 29/1/09 11:57, Steven Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:56:52 +0100, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> >> wrote: >>> This is wf XHTML but somehow the little bit of RDFa I've tried writing >>> (from memory) there isn't parsing with raptor/librdfa. I don't have >>> time to experiment today so thought I'd throw this out for >>> consideration in its current form. Help very much welcomed. >> >> Looks like you got your xmlns: prefixes wrong (late night hacking? :-) >> ): > > Pre-coffee hacking. But it goes to show how this Web thing will Never > Work, I guess. Wishing for more helpful parser error messages someday - > that would make all the difference. You could always have tried the W3C validator ;-) It would have told you. > I guess to be really plausible it will need wizard-based > editor/authoring tools, but I'm sure such things existed at one point > for P3P. In fact I know they do, I'm just not sure which is the best one > to build off - can any P3P experts speak up here? XSLT? > Maybe this contact stuff could even be another namespace, I'm not sure > if there's a need for it to be all in the P3P vocab these days. Yes, that was what I was thinking. No need to duplicate all this stuff in P3P. Let P3P just be the place for the truly privacy-oriented bits. Steven
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 09:28:07 UTC