- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:24:17 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, 'Karl Dubost' <karl@la-grange.net>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > Yes. Specifically regarding browsers: I don't understand the relevance of > browsers specifically here. Implementation cost is borne by every > implementor; browser vendors aren't alone here. Highlighting the example from my previous email: consider @rel. Browsers bear very little implementation cost for @rel: they just make it available in the DOM API. But Google decides to do much more with it, altering its search algorithm in fairly complex ways. When the markup is structured data rather than rendering instructions, the implementation-cost issue is quite different. There's only minimal mandatory cost across all markup consumers. Any additional cost that specific user-agents/data-miners take on is for a specific benefit they wish to extract, i.e. some useful property from the structured data. -Ben
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 17:25:00 UTC