Re: RDFa example in the GRDDL primer.

Bjoern,

First of all, thank you for your answer.

> Under the rules of the "XHTML Modularization" specifications you need
> a XHTML document type that allows the construction of such a document
> for this to be considered conforming in any way. Such a document type
> does not and, as it stands, cannot exist.
Yes. This is understood. The point of my email was not so much to look 
for a formal validator of an XHTML+RDFa document but to start a 
discussion between the two groups on an example.
In my opinion, it would be a pity to have RDFa and GRDDL primers 
published without them mentioning each other.
Moreover, as I mentioned in my previous email, we do not intend to 
include an RDFa example in the first draft of the GRDDL primer but only 
possibly in a later version when the RDFa group has a public draft out too.

>  There are also a number of
> rather odd things in that document, for example, <span> is a child of
> <body> which is considered bad practise for about ten years now, and
> the <span> includes a <dl>, which has never been allowed by any of the
> HTML and XHTML specifications, and the <meta http-equiv="content-type"
> content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> suggests that you might want to
> deliver this as text/html which is certainly not appropriate either.
>   
Indeed my XHTML was rather imperfect.Thank you for pointing the ugly 
things that I should have learned ten years ago ;-) I started to correct 
most of them.
However an even more important expertise we will need from this group is 
on the RDFa syntax itself.
If we want to give an example using RDFa in the GRDDL primer we would 
really be grateful if the RDFa syntax used in the example and the 
RDF/XML obtained from it could be reviewed by experts in this group.

> I suggest that if the group is to include any such example, it should
> conform to at least a published W3C Working Draft. It seems to me that
> you think of "RDFa" as something it clearly ain't, so I'm not sure I
> can suggest a good replacement for the example.
>   
The purpose of my request was to check if the idea of having an RDFa 
section in the GRDDL primer makes sense.
Your criticism is more general and seems to question our use of RDFa in 
our use cases as described in [1].
Is it the case? If so, please explain your concerns.

Regards,

Fabien
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm

-- 
"Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass
 and the little ones get caught."
                                  -- Honore de Balzac."
 ____________
|__ _ |_  http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/personnel/Fabien.Gandon/
|  (_||_) INRIA Sophia Antipolis - ph# (33)(0)4 92 38 77 88

Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 15:26:40 UTC