- From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:42:44 +0100
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Michael Bolger" <michael@michaelbolger.net>
- Cc: "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <peter.krantz@gmail.com>
Ivan, Michael, I support Ivan's proposal of a separate WG Note. If and when we start this activity I volunteer for taking lead on it ;) Cheers, Michael BTW, I cc'd Peter, as he showed some interest regarding HTML5 and RDFa a while ago (not sure if you are subscribed to the RDFa mailing list, Peter?). ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ ---------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman >Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:18 AM >To: Michael Bolger >Cc: RDFa >Subject: Re: Section 1 of the New RDFa Syntax Draft ready for reviews > >Sigh...:-( > >As an alternative... > >This document, as a Rec, defines an XHTML1 variant, ie, is based on >XHTML1. I am not sure it would be appropriate to discuss non XHTML1 >issues *within the document* (let alone the fact that this would slow >down the progress of the document on Rec path). > >What about planning for a separate WG Note instead that would give >information on how these attributes can be used in a >non-XHTML1 setting. >Such an informative note would be of a great value... (I know that we >were playing of defining the attributes without any reference to any >host language; that note would be somewhere between the two). > >I guess the issue about HTML5 is the question of extensibility, ie, of >validation. (And I do not think there is a clear view on that in the >HTML group either.) *If* this issue is put aside, the RDFa >specification >could be used with (well, invalid) HTML5 documents when using HTML5's >XML serialization. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in >the process >description of the RDFa attributes that would be dependent on a >particular HTML in XML version, it just describes things in terms of a >DOM tree operation. I am not sure about the non-XML HTML5, simply >because I lack the necessary knowledge on how this is handled with no >DOM tree around... > >Just my 2 cents... > >Thanks > >Ivan > >Michael Bolger wrote: >> >> I suggest a proactive approach toward a troubling >> development concerning IE8 [1] [2], what effect >> will it be if they fail to support XHTML? Also with >> HTML5 <!DOCTYPE html> [3] + profile issues. >> >> In Section 1 please include a brief , highly informative >> (relationship) projection about HTML5, I want to >> see the plan ahead, will all the work to create >> XHTML+RDFa documents now; survive (etc.). >> They might not make it through section 2.:) >> >> >> [1] >> >http://realtech.burningbird.net/standards/bobbing-heads-and-the >-ie8-meta-tag/ >> >> [2] http://www.molly.com/2008/01/24/me-ie8-and-microsoft-versioning/ >> [3] http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/ >> [4] http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-shiv/ >> -interesting "once you create a new DOM element" >> >> >> >> Thank You >> Mike >> > >-- > >Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 09:43:44 UTC