Re: GRDDL and HTML5

A wee bit unusually, I'm finding myself agreeing with DanC all the way here.

2008/8/25 Dan Connolly <connolly@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.

Exactly. Negate that and you are disenfranchising the community you support.

> 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.

Zero extra for the producer or consumer, if they don't want it.
Shall we discard HTML5 because it took a lot of work?

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.

Think global Mr.H. All known goes a long way.

> 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

The GRDDL development process has always been on the table, clear for
all to see.
Maybe the Hix protesteth too much?

Cheers,
Danny.

Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 14:30:00 UTC