- From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:27:22 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2/28/09 5:11 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Rob Sayre wrote: > > You can Solve Any Problem... if you're willing to make the problem > > small enough, > > What concerns me more than coordination costs is that RDFa in > text/html is proceeding: > > http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFainHTML4 > http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa#head-681001ee6c73e87bd692e29693b3904e462fd9f2 > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-ccREL-20080501/ > http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Well, that doesn't look like a very good plan to me, but I don't think the HTML WG needs apply stop energy. from http://rdfa.info/wiki/RDFainHTML4: > ...prefix mappings are defined using the XML Namespace mechanism > (xmlns:foo="someURI"). This is a well known mechanism, and people in > the XML and RDF communities are used to using it. This mechanism will > work fine in HTML4+RDFa documents - RDFa parsers will recognize the > "xmlns" attributes as prefix maps and act accordingly. If the RDFa community believes that mechanism "works fine" today, I don't see what the problem is. - Rob " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2009 22:28:13 UTC