- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:32:15 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr., Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:09:53 -0700: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Julian Reschke: >> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> The second isn't really distributed extensibility, because the >>> browsers have to support each vocab manually. >> >> I disagree that this isn't D.E. You seem to assume the D.E. implies some >> kind of code-on-demand, which IMHO is not what most people think. Otherwise >> XML namespaces wouldn't qualify either. > > I'm making a slightly subtler point. Microdata, RDFa, and even XML > Namespaces can all be processed with a generic processor that has no > information about the actual vocabularies being used. You can just > say "Find me all the items/triples/namespaced elements on the page", > and it can do it. Thus the extensibility granted by these > technologies is distributed, as no central authority has to recognize > and bless your vocab for it to be processable by generic tools. > > However, if this proposal requires tools to recognize particular > @profile values before it can even tell that there *is* data embedded > in the page, let alone *extract* it, then this does not seem to be > distributed in any significant way. I agree with Philip J. in that Toby's DE and MD are similar in this point: Both @profile and @itemtype do take URIs. Both MD and DE requires you to recognize attributes. However, DE allows UAs to develop a deeper support - for the DE spec in use. -- lh
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:32:54 UTC