W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <075801c26ec4$162da250$0301a8c0@w3.org>
To: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>, <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <paul@prescod.net>, <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

There is a boundary over which RDF could be used.
A solution for example is to make a hypertext link
using html:a  or xlink:href or whatever to indicate the
hypertext nature of the link, but then to use RDF to express
the relationships between various alternative long texts in different
which is the sort of thing RDF is natural for.

This would move longdesc out of HTML's purview into
a very reusable metadata vocabulary which could be used in
all kinds of different ways with different specs.

    <html:img src="car.png"/>
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="car.png">
        <wai:longdesc rdf:resource="car_en.txt"/>
        <wai:longdesc rdf:resource="car_fr.txt"/>
        <wai:audioalt rdf:resource="car_en.wav"/>

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="car_en.txt"
        wai:summary="A black convertible a little the worse for wear">

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="car_fr.txt">

With longdesc moved out, one of the problems of using xlink (or hlink)  goes
that of trying to do attributes on attributes and many links from one
element. And the problem of adderssing more  complex multilingual/multmedia
is solved.  And it kinda blends with cc/pp coming form the other direction.

So this would leave a link itself as a simpler thing.


----- Original Message -----
From: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
To: <jonathan@openhealth.org>; <paul@prescod.net>; <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Borden
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:07 AM
> > Which underscores the fact that RDF is a good generalization
> > of all this
> > stuff. With RDF you can express any semantics desired by e.g.
> > the HTML WG
> > with HLink etc.
> >
> > Why not just use XHTML+RDF, and the HTML WG develop a
> > particular terminology
> > which expresses its needs?
> Correction Jonathan. You may be able to express any semantics desired...
>   99% of users simply can't and this one certainly wouldn't want to.
> Like Paul, I'm sure some syntax could be worked out to match the semantics
> that appear to be clarifying around Norm's ideas.
> Regards DaveP.
> ******* snip here *************
> -
> NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
> confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
> intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use,
> disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
> immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your
> system.
> RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any
> attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it
> cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are
> transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
> Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
> and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of RNIB.
> RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
> Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 08:13:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:34 UTC