- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:08:31 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:42, Mark Birbeck wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> > wrote: >> The actual point is that the technical issues apply to text/html >> deployment >> regardless of whether RDFa is 'officially' added to HTML 5. > > Right. And as a question of deployment, it is not something that the > HTML5 spec-writers have the final say on; even if it were wildly > difficult to create an RDFa parser in script (which it isn't, of > course), that would still be something for implementers to make a > decision about, not the HTML5 spec team. Right. However, regardless of what HTML5 spec writers say, it is very implementor-unfriendly to put stuff that is well known to be special in XML compared to HTML (xmlns:foo in this case) in a spec that you foresee as being deployed as text/html. Why was RDFa specified to use xmlns:foo when it was obvious that people would want to deploy it as text/html and you should have known that HTML parsers handled xmlns:foo differently from XML parsers? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 11:09:14 UTC