W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2008

[whatwg] RDFa Features

From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:31:01 +0200
Message-ID: <42FD48E40A2F4F9F99FF3C7E874FBBE9@POCZTOWIEC>
"Does not use QNames" is not an advantage any more than "does not require
the user to be a USA citizen".  So you could have listed that as well.
I would like to append the following to the disadvantages:
The interface A[property] is very misleading.  You read it as "The property
of this anchor is cc:creator".  That does not make any sense (an anchor has
several properties and cc:creator is not one of them) and it does not
reflect what you want to say, which is "this anchor represents a property
named cc:creator of its enclosing element".  I am not sure how to fix this;
"isProperty" would be better but still not very good.
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:33 AM
To: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
> While Google owns the Web, it is not the core of the Web.  If Google goes
> down, Google users cannot use Google any more.  Sure, there are quite a
few
> of them; but Google is a big fish accordingly.
> On the other hand, if Verizon or InterNIC goes down, we have a blackout,
> possibly with street riots and people plundering stores.  That shows
Verizon
> is an authority, Google is not, although, in general, Google is more
useful.
> I believe in the general sanity in the architecture of the Web.  I keep
> asking these questions because I would like it to stay.

Kristof - you will have to be more precise. Could you please outline (in
short form bulleted list), every specific issue that you have with RDFa.
 A parallel short-form bulleted list of all RDFa features that you enjoy
would also be welcome. I believe that this thread has been going long
enough for you to formulate an educated opinion about what you do like
and what you don't like about RDFa. Getting such a list together will
also help us address your grievances better.

Here's an example of what I'd like to see:

RDFa Pros:
- Allows semantic metadata markup in HTML family languages.
- Does not use QNames

RDFa Cons:
- Mixes semantics with HTML structure
- Uses CURIEs to specify prefixes
- Does not work like CSS and does not re-use @class

and so on...

If any of you that have been involved in all of these discussions can
weight in with a list like that it would be very helpful. I can put
together a set of issues that the HTML5 community is concerned about and
we can start discussing them in the W3C RDFa Task Force.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.0 Website Launches
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/07/03/bitmunk-3-website-launches
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 01:31:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:05 UTC