W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2006

RE: GRDDL

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:00:58 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060217125226.02b600f8@127.0.0.1>
To: <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Cc: "'HCLS HCLS'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

At 12:27 PM 2/17/2006 -0500, Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>But at the current state, I would prefer GRDDL to RDF/A.  The reason is that
>using RDF/A would break the validity of X/HTML document.

yes, for current X/HTML DTDs.

> Unless W3C goes to
>the miles to add the RDF/A support,

which is exactly what the HTML Working Group has been working on.
This work is part of the XHTML2 working drafts [1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod-meta.html#s_metamodule

> using RDF/A means writing invalid-HTML
>documents.  But from the point of ease of use, RDF/A is a winer.  As I said
>before, XSLT, required by the GRDDL, is quite complex, it is not for the
>faint of heart.

One obvious deployment path for RDF/A (in XHTML2) is to use GRDDL.

GRDDL and RDF/A thus complement each other.  An XHTML2
document could declare the GRDDL profile and be recognized
by a GRDDL-aware processor with built-in recognition of the
RDF/A transformation URI or could use a generic GRDDL
processor that  actually dereferences the RDF/A transformation URI.

So, an RDF/A transform is but one of the many transforms that
would be available to a GRDDL processor.  If (when) XHTML2
becomes widely deployed, GRDDL processors could recognize
the RDF/A transformation URI natively and optimize that case.

It's a good synergy.
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 18:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:42 GMT