- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:17:56 -0500
- To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/11/2010 02:05 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > 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. Exactly right. This leaves the door open for innovation in new RDFa profile document markup mechanisms, but ensures a basic level of interoperability between all RDFa processors. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Saturday, 13 March 2010 21:18:29 UTC