W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Discussion with Ian and Henri about HTML5+RDFa (part 2/2)

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:46:31 -0800
Message-ID: <497F3A67.3010005@adida.net>
To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

Philip Taylor wrote:
> I don't have any decent statistics, but I've got some quick
> hacked-together data at http://philip.html5.org/data/cc-errors.txt
> Brief summary:
> As of a year ago, 0.1% of pages on dmoz.org (132 in my sample) had CC
> RDFa embedded in comments. (0.01% had it outside comments). Only one
> wasn't well-formed XML. Eight had an empty <License> element (I have no
> idea if that's a bad thing or not but it seemed odd). Two made incorrect
> assertions about licenses (e.g. saying that by-nc-nd permits
> DerivativeWorks), which looks like a case of
> copy-and-paste-and-tweak-and-get-it-wrong. So the error rate is low
> non-zero integer percentages.

Hi Philip,

Thanks for this info. I think you're talking about RDF in comments, the
ugly old style we had, and the central reason we worked on RDFa :)

CC's new recommendation, since last summer, is to use RDFa such as:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">
<img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0"
src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/us/88x31.png" />
<br />
<span xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
property="dc:title">Ben's blog</span>
<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://benlog.com"
property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">
  Ben Adida
is licensed under a
<a rel="license"
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.

Note how this no longer includes the license details (just de-reference
the license URL for that), so we expect this to be much more robust than
the RDF in comments you analyzed.

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 16:47:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:00 UTC