W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: GRDDL and XHTML+RDFa 1.1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:42:07 +0100
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1D11E130-A7C1-459D-B810-B89B7C288E64@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

On Feb 15, 2011, at 24:32 , Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:39:35 -0600
> Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>> <p>The XML Namespace document associated with the
>> XHTML Family of markup languages uses the
>> mechanism for transforming XHTML+RDFa documents into
>> RDF as defined by [[GRDDL]].
> Presumably by "RDF" it means "RDF/XML". After all, XHTML+RDFa is
> already RDF.
> Will this still work in RDFa 1.1? Our profile feature in particular
> seems like it requires capabilities beyond what most XSLT
> implementations can offer.

Worse. I am not even sure I understand the goal of the original remark we inherited! Adding an explicit profile (instead of using an implicit one) does not provide any automatism for a GRDDL processor. (Note that the _this_ profile does not include any RDFa specific instructions.)

I really wonder whether this remark should not be removed altogether. If we have an RDFa+XHTML document, why would one want to use GRDDL to transform it into RDF/XML in the first place? This is just a superfluous remark for the reader that causes more confusion (eg, harm) than good. I presume it is informative, ie, can be removed without any further ado.


> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 05:41:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:24 UTC