- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:10:10 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-grddl-comments@w3.org" <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:02 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: [...] > To be honest I don't really understand the reluctance from the GRDDL > community here. profile="" doesn't work, people don't use it. Surely the > right thing to do is to take that into account and fix GRDDL to work with > real world content. Why would you want to cling to something that has > widely been ignored and will make it harder to use GRDDL on the Web? The goal of GRDDL is not to scrape data out of pre-existing content but to let people choose explicitly to put RDF data in their documents. For that purpose, GRDDL and @profile work just fine. On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:20 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > > On the other hand, the price of keeping it is zero (or would have > been, > > if we would have started with the existing HTML4 vocabulary). > > The price of keeping it is not zero. Just look at the pain it has > caused > the GRDDL effort. Instead of just automatically supporting all known > vocabularies, the GRDDL team has instead been misled into thinking > that > having pages declare vocabularies is somehow better. Mislead? What evidence leads you to that conclusion? This is an explicit design choice. See the "Faithful Renditions" section. http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_rend -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 14:10:12 UTC