- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:04:55 +0900
Le 6 d?c. 2006 ? 11:17, Karl Dubost a ?crit :
> What Elias is saying is that the effort of RDFa community is
> 1. compatible with microformats (no changes are asked on this
> front)
> 2. being able to relate information distributed in a document
> (people do not want to have necessary to group information in the
> page, but still want to relate part of it.)
> 3. being conformant or at least authorized (my initial question
> about foreign attributes)
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-
December/thread.html#7429
Hmmm the server of microformats is quite? not stable.
A thread from the microformats community which is not opposed to RDFa
because there is no competition. Just one addressing more cases than
the other. And it doesn't arm the browsers as well, because RDFa like
microformats doesn't require any kind of actions from the browser.
At stake, there would be
- authoring tools
- RDFa parsing tools
RDFa Bookmarklets
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/rdfa-bookmarklet/
RDFa Wiki with a list of implementations in PHP, Java, Python,
Javascript, Firefox Plugins and XSLT
http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa
Le 6 d?c. 2006 ? 22:45, Bruce D'Arcus a ?crit :
> So while it might be comforting to dismiss RDFa and "it's not our
> problem", I don't think it's good strategy.
Le 6 d?c. 2006 ? 23:56, S. Sriram a ?crit :
> My own feeling is that a model which includes both
> 1. a uf-language (RDFa) and
> 2. canned formats (microformats)
> allows for greater flexibility, with canned formats allowing for
> aggregators/multiple tool vendors, where custom format developers
> would
> have the burden/opportunity of rolling their own renderers.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 18:04:55 UTC