- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:05:40 +0000
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:22 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
> It was discussed today that we could allow that as an option for
> implementers, but the only profile document format that would be
> required by the specification would be a document expressed in RDFa.
>
> This still means that one could use XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, SVG+RDFa or
> even perhaps ODF+RDFa.
A key point to make is that although RDFa would be the only format that
parsers would be required to implement support for, they would also be
free to support other formats.
Profile publishers would not be mandated to publish the profile in RDFa,
but any that care about interoperability would. They could choose to
publish the profile in multiple formats using content negotiation.
A parser that supports the required RDFa profile format, but also an
alternative JSON profile format might issue an HTTP Accept header like
this:
Accept: application/json;q=1.0, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.1,
text/html;q=0.1
Using the 'q' value to advertise that it would prefer the JSON profile,
as it would probably the lighter weight and quicker to parse.
--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 19:06:19 UTC