Re: Late, but I have reservations.

--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> What's different about these two situations? What
> mischief is enabled by 
> the RDFa case that isn't already enabled by the
> <link rel> case?
There is nothing different but as I said ...
... I can not see any ****audience benefits****
> to
> > counterbalance the potential mischief.
> 
> There are plenty of benefits to RDFa in the <head>,
> actually. Bob 
> DuCharme has outlined a number of them on this list in the
> past, in 
> particular regarding content annotation for content
> management systems.

annotation=injection in case you wondered about my use of that term.  In addition aggregation can be a problem for those lucky enough to be making a living off their commercial endorsements.  
> 
> I still don't see the mischief you're talking
> about. Please give us a 
> more detailed use case, maybe a precise example of how
> someone might get 
> harmed, and by whom. I'm particularly confused by
> who's doing the 
> "injection".

I'm not saying that you can't reference RDF in the <head> now (like the link), and I'm not saying that RDFa is evil everywhere.  In the <body> of a document, used to improve the depth of your writing it is much too good an idea to pass up.  OTOH, when you write code in the <head> of HTML, who is the audience?  You don't need RDFa to forge a link between two of your documents if you want to do that, but RDFa in the <head> might enable a third party to aggregate information about you without ever looking at what you authored.  I do not think this is a good thing, but more to the point, does the W3C have to recommend a superfluous (in the <head> element)standardization? 

--Gannon

Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 00:44:04 UTC