W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2011

Re: how dirty can the HTML be, and still be RDFa?

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:48:12 +0100
Cc: <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D5D4854B-1F34-481B-97D9-3279B0541519@bblfish.net>
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>

On 25 Nov 2011, at 14:38, Peter Williams wrote:

> 
> Thanks. 
>  
> my question is really simple: is http://yorkporc.blogspot.com/2011/11/bob.html#me a valid webid profile? 

It seems ok to me.

It passes http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/

which returns the following n3 when I enter your webid above



Can I add that URL to the team members list? :-)

>  
> I though the WHOLE point of our adoption RDFa was that a fragment of suitably marked up div (cut and pasted, per a previous poster) could be inserted in any old (dirty) XHTML, tagged with the correct doctype? It was rather ambiguous whether the doctype was even really required, though.
>  
> This property was supposed to differentiate it from the previous approaches, produced by machines in some serialization format produced in an endpoint - little different to any other for the last 30 years.
>  
> if it is, following up the usual insults from our W3C chair, ill make a blog post with my own certs/keys - rather than use the values from the spec. 
>  
> (I just used the spec values so there was nothing to object to ...in raw conformance terms ... while I found a publishing platform that works and could be tested against the test suite and the 14 other implementations, as they adopt the new spec over the next month)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:49:06 +0100
> > From: danbri@danbri.org
> > To: home_pw@msn.com
> > CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: how dirty can the HTML be, and still be RDFa?
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > Re dirty HTML, this is a very real issue. HTML documents are usually
> > pretty crappy, standards-wise.
> > 
> > I'd suggest looking into HTML5's approach. They have a much more
> > liberal parsing regime than XML (this was one of the major drivers for
> > the original WHATWG/XHTML fork).
> > 
> > So http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/parsing.html#parsing and nearby define
> > ways of turning ugly worldy documents into a parsed structure. There's
> > a parser at http://code.google.com/p/html5lib/ or
> > http://about.validator.nu/htmlparser/
> > 
> > See also http://ejohn.org/blog/html-5-parsing/
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > Dan
> >

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 13:48:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 November 2011 13:48:55 GMT