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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:50:31 -0500
Message-ID: <4ECFFF97.5030809@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 11/25/11 3:35 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote:
> RDFa 1.1 has several improvements leading to simpler markup, plays 
> well with HTML5 and isn't as restrictive as RDFa 1.0 re doctypes.
Ultimately, we are going to end up with the obvious question: why isn't 
html+microdata being given the same standing as (x)html+rdfa? There is a 
mime type claims war raging re. who really owns: text/html. You know 
that html+microdata is the natural representation for: text/html. Thus, 
can we really save implementer the hassle of figuring all of this out.

We shouldn't force syntax on anyone. There are many ways to represent 
EAV/SPO based directed graphs. If we are going to suggest anything, lets 
veer away from covert (x)html+rdfa vs html5+microdata wars re. mime 
type: text/html. It ultimately just infuriates implementers.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen








Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 21:01:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 November 2011 21:01:12 GMT