Re: Late, but I have reservations.

--- On Mon, 8/4/08, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:

> Gannon, at this point, I have to recommend that we reject
> your comment 
> because:
> 
> 1) you agree that RDFa is no more expressive than <link
> rel>, which 
> implies that it cannot be any more of a threat than
> <link rel> (note 
> that I still don't understand the threat, but at least
> we know it's no 
> worse than what we currently have.)
> 
> 2) you may not see the point of RDFa in the head, but
> others do, as 
> described above.

> Gannon: I hope this statement clears up confusion, and that
> you can 
> "live with" the answer. Let us know either way.

To your point 1) above:  Yes, I agree with your logic.  However, the list of @rel values is no longer just the xhtml/vocab.  Might make a difference, might not.  I can see some commercial value, and I guess that's enough.

Point 2) we should just agree to disagree.  An empty <body> is perfectly legal html, and it bothers me that a you can have a document with no (displayed) content and still assert that it even has meta data.  I live in Texas where the word "maverick" (an unbranded calf) originated.  Sam Maverick, Yale Lawyer (you should have known) turned Cattle Baron, had some success claiming his "Brand" was the one you didn't see.  An HTML document with a <head> but nothing in the <body> sounds to me like something Sam cooked up.  We're not big on Meta-Physics here, but we know a cattle rustler when see one.

I can of course live with the answer.  I'll make a sub-set of your XHTML 1.1 super-set.  What I was after to begin with was a way to use RDFa to mark redactions <http://purl.org/pii/terms/>.  That all works quite nicely.  I added an image tag yesterday, <http://purl.org/pii/terms/image> , but that is the only change I'll need to make to the name space.

--Gannon

Received on Sunday, 10 August 2008 21:29:46 UTC