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

[whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:09:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CF03D490-E9B6-481E-A7DB-2DF6D30129FF@iki.fi>
On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:11, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I don't believe that is the case.
>> If I've understood history correctly, introducing Namespaces into  
>> XML was primarily a requirement stipulated by the RDF community.  
>> XML got
>
> Pointer, please?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0116.html

>> ...
>> I like the GRDDL approach of seeing RDF there by looking at non-RDF  
>> things just right--with the modification that the person who wants  
>> to look just right is the one supplying the transform.
>> ...
>
> I like GRDDL, too, but it has problems with respect to scaling  
> similar to microformats. Things will get complicated when you want  
> to combine statements from different vocabularies on the same page.

The completely prefixless microformat naming approach isn't good when  
different microformats overlap and common words have been allocated  
badly. It works if you can decide that all classes that are on  
descendants of a class identifying a format root belong to that format  
(i.e. the subtree root is effectively the prefix).

If vocabularies are designed to overlap, instead of having "title" it  
would be better to have "hcard-title". Still no need for all the full  
URI stuff in HTML. That could live in the GRDDL transform.

>> ...
>>> Browsers don't
>>> need to do anything (except make the attributes available in the  
>>> DOM,
>>> which they would probably do anyways.)
>> I'm getting mixed signals about the extent to which RDFa in  
>> envisioned to be browser-sensitive. Weren't browsers supposed to do  
>> cool stuff with it according to some emails in this thread?
>> ...
>
> Browsers are not "supposed" to do with RDFa anymore than, for  
> instance, with microformats.


I've seen Mozilla Ubiquity referred to several times in this thread-- 
presumably with the implication that something like Mozilla Ubiquity  
should be RDFa-based. That would be more than just ignoring  
attributes. (As far as I can tell, Ubiquity is not RDFa-based.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 29 August 2008 12:09:54 UTC

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