Re: use case focus - resending

Shelley Powers wrote:
> 
>>> After today, though, I'm less concerned. Much less concerned.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> As near as I can tell, the announcement is totally vaporware at this 
>> point, but at least it is from a credible source.
>>
> The RDFa support is also constrained now, to more or less match 
> microformat support.  Google created its own vocabulary, which is cool. 
> People can use more than one.
> 
> The company has said that it will _gradually_ add in support for other 
> vocabularies over time. It's not a use what you want annotation, at the 
> moment, but I have hopes for over time.
> 
>> I still maintain that somebody needs to produce an "RDFa for HTML" 
>> draft specification; the question as to whether that particular 
>> content needs to be in or separate from the HTML 5 specification are 
>> secondary, IMHO.
>>
> I agree, and I believe this is happening. But I think this happening is 
> where some of the contention arose.

If you can find an URI for such a document, I'd appreciate it.  I've 
been asking and I've been looking, and I can't find it.

> If a person doesn't care about validation, one can use RDFa with few 
> worries.

If you use the DOM and know the difference between a node name and a 
local name, the differences between HTML parsing rules and XHTML parsing 
rules are fairly minor.  If you use SAX or XOM, the differences are a 
bit larger.  Still finite, but definitely larger.  (Ignore Henri when he 
points out that the number of xmlns:foo attributes are "countably 
infinite", so too are data attributes).

If the right solution for this is to replace the usage of xmlns with 
prefix, the cost for this change goes up with every application 
(producer or consumer) that implements RDFa as it is spec'ed now.

I also believe that Philip can produce a number of examples which would 
indicate that "few worries" is a bit of an understatement.  Then again, 
if anybody could build a solid case that the humble <p> element in HTML4 
is unworkable, I'm sure that person would be Philip.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 21:08:18 UTC