- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:14:10 -0700
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > On 22 Sep 2009, at 21:50, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> >> >> >Sure, but if you have a DOM, what do you do? One solution is certainly >>> >>> to say that "If you have a DOM, there is no way to extract RDFa data". >>> This is certainly a possibility, but it does mean that it's impossible >>> to >> >> ... to build a RDFa implementation in javascript, as javascript is >> handed a DOM. I don't know if javascript implementations of RDFa is >> something that's considered important. > > I know of at least three Javascript implementations of RDFa parsers that > each use the DOM: > > * The Operator add-on for Firefox > * Jeni Tennison's rdfQuery library, based on jQuery > * Ben Adida's implementation > <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/impl/js/20080817/> > > If, as you say, RDFa implementations "can't" use the DOM, it appears this is > more of a "theoretical can't" rather than a "practical can't". The question is if there's a defined precise way to do it. As I showed, there are at least 5 different ways to do it, which one is correct. I think I found the code that extracts prefix mappings, and it appears that it uses method 3. So my question is, why is this more correct than any of the other 4 methods i proposed? / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 21:15:13 UTC