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

Re: Request to publish HTML+RDFa (draft 3) as FPWD

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:14:10 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909221414v18b8f905l90b4910ae0195b9c@mail.gmail.com>
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:05 UTC