W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

Re: RDFa in XHTML Feedback/Edits

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:55:20 -0400
Message-ID: <46E9EA08.5070908@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> This is very much appreciated--thanks for your hard work.

No problem - editing is easy, the hard work was done by you and the rest
of the fine folks on this list that have labored for so long to get both
documents to this point. :)

> The main 'big' comment you have concerns the Orientation,
> which you don't seem to like. :)

:)

> I think
> it's important that someone can implement RDFa parsing just by using
> this one document.

I was assuming that to implement RDFa, one would read the Primer and
then the Syntax document. Usually that's what I've experienced (albeit,
very limited experience - not many people have to implement W3C specs).

If the goal of the document is to teach somebody enough about RDFa to
implement a parser without first reading the Primer, then we must have
an Orientation section in there.

> But I wonder if the whole section might look more useful if the
> attributes were highlighted in the examples? 

Yes, please do this.

> If in addition to that we
> moved the list of attributes that's currently at the end--that you
> suggest is quite useful but needs a better home--to the top of the
> Orientation section, the whole section becomes a useful reference.

Yes, that would be good.

> What you'd have then is a list of the attributes with a one sentence
> summary, followed by a list of quick examples to illustrate their use
> in terms of the syntax. I would still leave any mention of the triple
> generation to the following sections.

That makes sense.

Please also keep the following in mind when changing the Orientation
section:

1. *puts the PR/spin hat on* Please don't use <meta> and <link> in the
examples. They're associated with the first attempt at the semantic web
failing. They were misused and abused and hardly anybody uses them now.
Even most search engines ignore them. It makes RDFa look dated. I put
<link> and <meta> in the same cognitive bucket as VRML... "Let us
introduce you to the Web of Tomorrow... now in 3D!"... but maybe that's
just me :P

How about re-using the examples in the Primer? I apologize, but I don't
have the time tonight to mock up an example and suggest the complete
fix, but I can try to put something together after I get back from a
conference next Tuesday.

2. In the 1-2 sentence description, make sure that you outline the
attributes that are being used in the example and what they do. For example:

Change this (Section 2, example #4):

"Not only can URLs in the document be re-used to provide metadata, but
so can inline text:"

to this:

"Not only can URLs in the document be re-used to provide metadata, but
by using @property, so can inline text:"

Make sure to highlight where @property is used in the metadata.

3. Are we using the term "metadata" or "structured data"? I think we
should stay consistent and use the latter.

Hope that helps...

-- manu
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 02:07:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC