RE: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor

Hi Bjoern,

You said that RDF/A was dropped, and I replied that it wasn't. You then said
that there had been insufficient explanation of the motivations for RDF/A,
so I gave you some. You now say that RDF/A doesn't do the job...I hope
you'll forgive me if I don't chase your moving goalposts any more on this --
especially since you warned me in your first email that you are unlikely to
be convinced ;)

Best regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Sent: 20 May 2005 00:27
> To: Mark Birbeck
> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; 'HTML WG'
> Subject: Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor
> 
> 
> * Mark Birbeck wrote:
> >However, everyone knows that pretty much no other community 
> outside of 
> >the RDF one has taken up RDF/XML. HTML authors certainly haven't, so 
> >the real problem to solve is how the RDF-world can get access to the 
> >metadata that the HTML authors provide, when the HTML 
> authors are never 
> >going to provide it in a form that can be processed by the 
> RDF-world (i.e., RDF/XML).
> 
> Indeed, the HTML authoring community did not adopt RDF/XML 
> syntax for their web sites. The reasons for that are quite 
> obvious, XHTML does not enjoy widespread adoption so authors 
> can only use things that are HTML- compatible and RDF/XML 
> syntax clearly isn't except if you put the meta data into 
> comments which is technically unsound. There is also no W3C 
> specification that explains how to do that anyway. So first 
> and fore- most the community does not adopt RDF/XML syntax 
> because it can't.
> 
> Your conclusion that HTML authoring community won't ever 
> adopt RDF/XML is interesting though, I assume there are 
> technical reasons why it would be unreasonable to expect them 
> to use RDF/XML syntax in XHTML 2.0, maybe you can elaborate 
> on these issues and how RDF/A solves these problems?
> The draft notes validation and unwieldy syntax and I've 
> pointed out why I think RDF/A addresses neither of these nor 
> many other problems.
> 
> >However, we felt that it might be possible to come up with a 
> different 
> >approach that leverages the HTML author's understanding of 
> <meta> and 
> ><link>;
> 
> This is an interesting remark; I thought it is pretty clear 
> from the public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf archives that even people 
> familiar with both RDF and HTML have trouble to understand 
> when to use RDF/A's <link> or <meta> element, how to nest 
> them or how to combine them with the many attributes to 
> achieve the desired effect.
> 
> <link> links to resources related to the document and <meta> 
> is for document meta data and fake HTTP headers. Much of this 
> is no longer true with RDF/A (and not widely known anyway) 
> and beyond that I fail to see how RDF/A leverages much here.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · 
> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: 
> +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 
> http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 23:50:27 UTC