W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-earl10-comments@w3.org > May 2011

Bug 038: DOM and Multimedia Content

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:20:57 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinazALbCcP2Z9_4aqkVmOyVLT2XOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-earl10-comments@w3.org
This is feedback on a Editor's Draft:

Representing Content in RDF 1.0
W3C Editors Draft 2 May 2011
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Content/WD-Content-in-RDF10-20110502

This technology is strongly oriented towards providing constructs to
express XML documents in RDF, but not so much HTML. Since most web
content is in HTML, and image and video formats, rather than XML, I
wonder why XML has received so much focus here. We talk about
accessibility of web content, but if web content is predominantly HTML
then why not cover it in the draft?

The draft itself even talks about this, in § 6 [actually 5, compare
Bug 036] Limitations of the vocabulary:

—
Typical scenarios for extensions could be:

Classes to specify the Document Object Model (DOM) of XML or HTML documents.
Classes to specify the metadata of multimedia content like audio or image files.
—

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Content/WD-Content-in-RDF10-20110502#limitations

But I would go further here and say that rather than these being mere
“typical scenarios” for extensions, they are in fact far more
important than what is described in the draft itself. It's as though
the HTML5 specification had lots of information about CODE, SAMP, and
KBD, and then said that the whole rest of the language was open to
creation through extensibility. Perhaps this group should be
responsible for creating what it deems important!

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 13:21:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:24 UTC