W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: ISSUE-76: If we fixed namespaces, does RDFa still have problems?

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:53:19 -0500
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20912110953u3325fe3o5cb0c1587c5c7f46@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> RDFa 1.1 will allow for the use of RDFa without declaring any namespaces
> and using vocabularies and keywords instead. For example:
> <p vocab="http://example.org/foaf.html" about="#robert" typeof="Person">
>   My name is <span property="name">Robert Ennals</span>.
> </p>

While this is simpler than actually declaring namespaces, is it
necessary to throw in a URL for vocab="" if the vocabulary is meant to
be used by in-page JavaScript and not used by third-party sources?  I
believe this is one of the use-cases for microdata, although I guess
it hasn't historically been something RDFa is very concerned about.
For instance:

USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML has no semantics for, and
   which nobody has annotated before, and may never again, for private use or
   use in a small self-contained community.

It doesn't seem like a URL should have to be specified in this case.
The author of the page should be able to change the names used in the
event of a conflict, just like he could change the names of CSS
classes, JavaScript functions, etc.  The idea would be that you could
store structured data in the page and retrieve it conveniently via the
JavaScript APIs.
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 17:53:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC