- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:22:05 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- CC: 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Kjetil Kjernsmo' <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, 'Karl Dubost' <karl@la-grange.net>, 'Kingsley Idehen' <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdfa@w3.org, 'RDFa mailing list' <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>, 'Michael Bolger' <michael@michaelbolger.net>, 'Tim Berners-Lee' <timbl@w3.org>, 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Mark Birbeck: >> But the attributes in RDFa are not prefixed -- @about, @resource, >> @datatype and @content are new attributes, whilst @rel, @rev, @href >> and @src already exist > > At a wild guess, this is the heart of the technical disagreement: > The additional 4 attributes might cost too much for people who do not need or want or gain benefit from RDFa. The implementation cost of these attributes is zero: recipients are not required to do anything with them. Documenting them (in tutorials, books...) is not free, but then, if you aren't interested in them, why document them? > Might it be possible to carry the same information within HTML5 without imposing the cost on people who don't need it. Could you clarify what precisely that cost is? > Are there extension points that could be used? > If the cost for non RDFa people is 0, then it gives the RDFa community space to demonstrate value with running code and deployed apps. > > > e.g. could these additional attributes be included in a script data block element? > > <script type="text/rdfa"> > about="http://example.org" > datatype="xsd:int" > </script> Are you suggesting that only putting the attributes on <script> somehow changes costs? How so? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 09:23:03 UTC