W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Some comments re: microformats

From: Ryan King <ryan@technorati.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:06:57 -0700
Message-Id: <F086487A-F0FB-492A-9D60-7207C55C961F@technorati.com>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:56 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> Ryan, I just added (somewhat off the top of my head) a paragraph to  
> the
> Primer that I hope addresses your review [1]. It is as follows:
> "Microformat-enabled web-pages on the Web may not be  valid XHTML. For
> this purpose, one may wish to use <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-scenarios/#html_tidy_use_case">a
> program like Tidy (or some other algorithm) to make the web-page
> equivalent to valid XHTML</a> before applying GRDDL <a
> href="#GRDDL-SCENARIOS">[GRDDL-SCENARIOS]</a>.  Also, many  
> microformats
> may not have profiles with transformations. A user can always take
> matters into their own hands  by applying <a
> href="http://esw.w3.org/topic/CustomRdfDialects">a GRDDL  
> transformation
> for a microformat</a> directly to the web page in order to get RDF.  
> This
> is risky since if the author of the document or microformat vocabulary
> does not explicitly license a GRDDL transformation, the responsibility
> for those RDF is now in the hands of the user."
> I also think the phrasing addresses the concerns DanC had about people
> running non-licensed GRDDL transforms.
> Please tell me if this paragraph addresses your concerns.

It does. Thanks.


> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html#scheduling
> Ryan King wrote:
>> Promted by Harry's message to microformats-discuss[1], I'd like  
>> make a
>> few comments. Part of the group's charter calls for interoperability
>> with microformats. As an active member of the community around
>> microformats.org, I'd like to review the specification from that
>> perspective.
>> Here are a few issues/comments I'd like to make:
>> 1. tagsoup? html?
>> The spec describes how to apply a transformation from "Valid XHTML",
>> but fails to define any way to deal with other content on the web.
>> Given that the majority of the web is something other than "Valid
>> XHTML" [2], this spec doesn't seem to be very useful on the Web.
>> There also doesn't appear to be any normative way to deal with non  
>> XML
>> HTML (like HTML 4, for example).
>> Unfortunately, this appears to be out of scope for for the group's
>> charter[3]:
>>> It binds XML documents, especially XHTML documents, XHTML profiles
>>> and XML namespace documents
>> and there's not mention of a requirement to work with existing  
>> content
>> on the web, so I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this
>> stage.
>> 2. profiles, editing <head>
>> AFAICT from my reading of the spec, authors producing content to be
>> consumed via GRDDL will need to add a profile uri to the <head> of
>> their XHTML documents.
>> This requirement will reduce the compatibility with existing
>> microformats content on the web. Most content does not have a  
>> profile.
>> Also, there are many web authors for whom editing the <head> of their
>> documents is either prohibited or much more difficult than adding
>> content in the <body>
>> Lastly, the current HTML5 draft removes @profile. Of course, this is
>> just a draft and things may change, but there doesn't appear to be a
>> story about future compatibility here.
>> -ryan
>> 1.
>> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2007-May/ 
>> 009624.html
>> 2. I can't find the reference but Ian Hickson did a study at google
>> which showed that more than 90% of page on the web had lexical level
>> validity issues. Most of the web is not well formed, much less
>> conformant XHTML
>> 3. http://www.w3.org/2006/07/grddl-charter.html
> -- 
> 		-harry
> Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh
> http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 19:07:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:29 UTC