- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:00:58 -0500
- To: <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: "'HCLS HCLS'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
At 12:27 PM 2/17/2006 -0500, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >But at the current state, I would prefer GRDDL to RDF/A. The reason is that >using RDF/A would break the validity of X/HTML document. yes, for current X/HTML DTDs. > Unless W3C goes to >the miles to add the RDF/A support, which is exactly what the HTML Working Group has been working on. This work is part of the XHTML2 working drafts [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod-meta.html#s_metamodule > using RDF/A means writing invalid-HTML >documents. But from the point of ease of use, RDF/A is a winer. As I said >before, XSLT, required by the GRDDL, is quite complex, it is not for the >faint of heart. One obvious deployment path for RDF/A (in XHTML2) is to use GRDDL. GRDDL and RDF/A thus complement each other. An XHTML2 document could declare the GRDDL profile and be recognized by a GRDDL-aware processor with built-in recognition of the RDF/A transformation URI or could use a generic GRDDL processor that actually dereferences the RDF/A transformation URI. So, an RDF/A transform is but one of the many transforms that would be available to a GRDDL processor. If (when) XHTML2 becomes widely deployed, GRDDL processors could recognize the RDF/A transformation URI natively and optimize that case. It's a good synergy.
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 18:01:31 UTC