Re: customer feedback, please (trackback)

On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 11:20, Phil Ringnalda wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I'd like to check in with anybody who feels like a customer,
> > especially the intersection of this task force with the
> > Semantic Web Best Practices WG.
> >
> > Who are the customers? Who feels like their work is
> > blocked on this problem? I have heard
> 
> I haven't heard any mention of Trackback for quite a while: am I right in
> thinking that its problem (needing to associate multiple bits of RDF with
> named anchors for fragments of quite-possibly invalid HTML, needing to do it
> in the body of the page rather than the head, and as currently implemented
> needing RDF serialized as exactly the specified XML) is too ugly to have a
> reasonable solution?

Hmm... I've sketched it out in my head a few times, and I thought
we could do something useful about the trackback case with GRDDL.
But I haven't found time to work out the details.

The solutions I have in mind do involve *some* markup in the head,
and they can accomodate "RDF serialized as exactly the specified XML"
and "needing to associate multiple bits of RDF with
named anchors for fragments" just fine.

Can you clarify "quite-possibly invalid HTML"?
Maybe this check-box applies?

[ ] We rely on HTML that isn't XML, so neither of these
        proposals works for us

I'm not inclined to endorse anything that isn't well-formed XML,
but I'm aware of various approaches for coercing tag soup into XHTML
(tidy and derivatives) and I'm not going to stop anybody
from applying those techniques to bridge the gap between
what's out there and what XSLT processors can read.




> Phil Ringnalda
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 17:32:26 UTC