- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 00:50:01 +0100
- To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "'HTML WG'" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bjoern, You said that RDF/A was dropped, and I replied that it wasn't. You then said that there had been insufficient explanation of the motivations for RDF/A, so I gave you some. You now say that RDF/A doesn't do the job...I hope you'll forgive me if I don't chase your moving goalposts any more on this -- especially since you warned me in your first email that you are unlikely to be convinced ;) Best regards, Mark Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-html-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann > Sent: 20 May 2005 00:27 > To: Mark Birbeck > Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; 'HTML WG' > Subject: Re: [HTML] Re: additional GRDDL editor > > > * Mark Birbeck wrote: > >However, everyone knows that pretty much no other community > outside of > >the RDF one has taken up RDF/XML. HTML authors certainly haven't, so > >the real problem to solve is how the RDF-world can get access to the > >metadata that the HTML authors provide, when the HTML > authors are never > >going to provide it in a form that can be processed by the > RDF-world (i.e., RDF/XML). > > Indeed, the HTML authoring community did not adopt RDF/XML > syntax for their web sites. The reasons for that are quite > obvious, XHTML does not enjoy widespread adoption so authors > can only use things that are HTML- compatible and RDF/XML > syntax clearly isn't except if you put the meta data into > comments which is technically unsound. There is also no W3C > specification that explains how to do that anyway. So first > and fore- most the community does not adopt RDF/XML syntax > because it can't. > > Your conclusion that HTML authoring community won't ever > adopt RDF/XML is interesting though, I assume there are > technical reasons why it would be unreasonable to expect them > to use RDF/XML syntax in XHTML 2.0, maybe you can elaborate > on these issues and how RDF/A solves these problems? > The draft notes validation and unwieldy syntax and I've > pointed out why I think RDF/A addresses neither of these nor > many other problems. > > >However, we felt that it might be possible to come up with a > different > >approach that leverages the HTML author's understanding of > <meta> and > ><link>; > > This is an interesting remark; I thought it is pretty clear > from the public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf archives that even people > familiar with both RDF and HTML have trouble to understand > when to use RDF/A's <link> or <meta> element, how to nest > them or how to combine them with the many attributes to > achieve the desired effect. > > <link> links to resources related to the document and <meta> > is for document meta data and fake HTTP headers. Much of this > is no longer true with RDF/A (and not widely known anyway) > and beyond that I fail to see how RDF/A leverages much here. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · > http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: > +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · > http://www.websitedev.de/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 23:50:31 UTC