- From: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:31:10 +0100
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:10:26 +0100, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote: > I wrote a proposal on RDFa containers a while ago: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-rdfa-containers > "Two factors motivate the introduction of syntactic sugar for RDF containers in RDF/A: 1. the explicit use of such RDF properties is inconvenient for human authors, and 2. XHTML already offers elements that naturally exhibit RDF container semantics." Personally, I would prefer to be explicit, instead of having syntactic sugar for lists. In general, I think it would be good for the RDFa rules to be as simple and consistent as possible, so that it is easy to understand how to write it, and also easy to write parsers. With regards to lists in particular, I find lists in HTML much more useful than lists in RDF, and would rather that the two were not so tightly coupled that I couldn't write an HTML list without it generating triples. I suppose this is counter to what seems to be RDFa's ideal of having the semantics of RDF and HTML fundamentally integrated, but as an RDF-in-HTML author, what I (generally) want is for the triples to describe a resource, rather than the HTML representation of that resource. And as I said with regards to labels, it is probably safer not to try to be too helpful, and just leave the author in full control, because you can't know in advance how they will want to use RDFa. My tuppence worth. Keith -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 10:31:00 UTC