Re: Ongoing objection to RDFa Profiles format (as XHTML+RDFa)

Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2010, at 15:06 , Nathan wrote:
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Nathan,
>>> before you really go down that route...
>> just exploring what else may be possible, if RDF isn't the answer and we need something name-value then what are the options? We can't assert we need profiles but not define them.
>>> On Oct 8, 2010, at 14:10 , Nathan wrote:
>>>> Define a new HTML element <prefix> with two attributes @name and @value. to be used as such:
>>>> <prefix name="foaf" value="">
>>> Although very early versions of RDFa (if I remember well, I was not part of the group back then) did introduce new elements, the group made a very conscious decision to express everything in terms of attributes only. (Hence the name, RDF in attributes). The reason is that adding a new element to a host language is much more demanding. It is generally true that, say, a browser will simply ignore an attribute it does not understand but will add that attribute to the DOM tree, it may screw up the presentation algorithm of a browser if it hits an element it does not understand. On the other hand, convincing the HTML5 group to add a new, RDFa specific element to HTML5 is a lost cause.
>> Embarrassing, but I hadn't noticed the RDFa = "RDF in attributes" before!
>> I would point to my earlier mail [1] and the quote from the HTML WG that "it's good to allow other standards to define new HTML elements and attributes" in this case, but also I have a general notion that given all the focus on RDFa in both proposals [2][3] for the big open issue [4] they have about extensibility and this response [5] that we should probably be giving some official feedback from the RDFa WG and either work with them to come up with something or wait and see what they come up with as a general solution and see if we can tie in with it (or get them to come up with it), especially given some of the comments in [5].
> RDFa is outside that particular discussion: there is an official HTML5+RDFa work item, so the fact that RDFa is used in the argumentation is, in some ways, secondary. Many is part of the HTML5 WG, but I do not believe we have to raise our voice on that; any outcome of the discussion is good for us because it does not affect us.
> However, exactly because HTML5+RDFa is part of the HTML5 work, adding a new element would not be an extension but would be an additional element to the core HTML5. And that would be a fairly steep uphill battle which, to be sincere with you, I am not ready to start...

Thanks for clarifying that Ivan :) 'waste of time' springs to mind



Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 14:08:57 UTC