- From: Guha <guha@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:50:25 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-7YnydBmimCV9DbdhUUZFRAzq=SOnaxC1Z_fgpXiyAxw@mail.gmail.com>
Too many different issues here, I will kick off separate threads to discuss each. guha On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Hey Manu (and others) > > On Oct 22, 2011, at 03:47 , Manu Sporny wrote: > [skip] > > > > >> To > >> formally define some sort of a conformance criteria for processors? > > > > I think having separate conformance criteria for RDFa would be a huge > mistake. > > Formally, probably no, you are right. But I could very well see an extra > option in my RDFa distiller, for example, which says 'understand RDFa 1.1 > Lite only'. The same for my validator. That is not conformance, but useful > nevertheless... > > > > >> With all my love to your blog page:-), it would be good to have that > >> documented somewhere, probably on the W3C site... > > > > I'm personally offended that you don't view my personal blog as a good, > normative source for Web standards! :P > > Sorry:-) > > > > > I'd be happy to spec-ify the text that is there on RDFa 1.1 Lite as a > W3C Note, and publish via W3C. > > > > O.k. That is probably something that could be done quickly. Alternatively, > if this is something that binds to schema.org, the three (or four now > with Baidu?) W3C members who are part of schema.org can submit that as a > member submission. Both are possible and I do not have a strong > preference... > > >> Also: does RDFa 1.1 Lite include the initial context? Ie, the default > >> prefixes and terms? > > > > Yes. There is a sentence in the blog post outlining this bit: > > > > "One of the other nice things about RDFa 1.1 (and RDFa 1.1 Lite) is that > a number of useful and popular prefixes are pre-defined, so you can skip > declaring them altogether and just use the prefixes. > > Ah, o.k. > > Two more technical remarks: > > - I presume the answer is yes, but it was not mentioned in your blog: is > @src part of RDFa 1.1 Lite? > > - The removal of @resource may create problems in practice _unless_ HTML5 > allows <link> (and, for completeness, <meta>) elements in the body. The use > cases of putting some elements somewhere else on the page and referring to > it from several other places (the equivalent of @itemref in md) depend on > the fact that I can make, in RDF terms, a reference to a subject elsewhere > on the page. With the removal of @resource the only way to do that is via > @href, and without <link> that means that all such links will be clickable. > We may not want that, and that is where <link> would come into play. > > I know there is a bug entry to the HTML5 WG, but I am afraid of this > leading to yet another long discussion with that WG. Allowing @resource > (even though it is rarely used) would alleviate that... > > Thanks again Manu > > Ivan > > > > > > -- manu > > > > -- > > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > > blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed > > http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/ > > > > > ---- > 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 Saturday, 22 October 2011 14:50:52 UTC