- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:27:44 -0700
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > SQL actually doesn't affect the HTML5 language, Isn't that nitpicking a bit? It's part of the feature-set that a browser would have to implement, part of the books that have to be written, etc..., right? > I don't really think it makes sense to compare that > feature to RDF though... (Because as far as I can tell we're not talking > about adding an RDF triple store to browsers.) Exactly, RDFa makes far fewer demands. >> The cost is small when we've already written a lot of the documentation >> and specs for how this would work (in XHTML, but it's all DOM-based.) > > No, it makes the language more complex. That's a significant cost. So, since we've written the documentation, and we're willing to write it in the context of HTML5, what is the *significant* cost to the HTML5 WG? >> Ubiquity is a plug-in. The user-agents themselves don't have to support >> those features directly, at least not now. > > "not now" was my point, indeed. Just to be clear, I meant "not now" for user-agents' mandated UIs, but certainly "now" for integrating into the language and letting user-agent extensions handle them. >> The SQL-in-the-browser spec affects user-agents quite a bit more, since >> they actually *have* to provide SQL capabilities, otherwise they're not >> conformant. > > Yes, though again, that's a totally different feature. Supporting > (dynamic) CSS layout probably costs us a lot more, yet having that > doesn't imply we should simply add support for everything that is less > complex. I'm only trying to frame the complexity of RDFa to that of another new feature that was recently added. I wouldn't dream of comparing to CSS, which is obviously not new. -Ben
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 15:27:44 UTC