W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2009

[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:19:24 +1100
Message-ID: <op.unmo2mwuwxe0ny@c211-28-146-67.smelb2.vic.optusnet.com.au>
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:41:10 +1100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>  
wrote:

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> *If* we want to support RDFa, why not add the attributes the way they  
>>> are
>>> already named???
>>  Because the issue is that we don't yet know if we want to support
>> RDFa.  That's the whole point of this thread.  Nobody's given a useful
>> problem statement yet, so we can't evaluate whether there's a problem
>> we need to solve, or how we should solve it.
>
> For the record: I disagree with that. I have the impression that no  
> matter how many problems are presented, the answer is going to be: "not  
> that stone -- fetch me another stone".

There does appear to be some of this. I have no idea if that is just an  
impression or the truth. Hence my continued following of the thread.

>> Alex's suggestion, while officially against spec, has the benefit of
>> allowing RDFa supporters to sort out their use cases through
>> experience.  That's the back door into the spec, after all; you don't
>
> If something that is against the spec is acceptable, then it's *much*  
> easier to just use the already defined attributes. Better breaking the  
> spec by using new attributes then abusing existing ones.

Indeed. I the data-* attributes had some reserved values, then one might  
expect people to invest in them on the scale that they have typically made  
RDF investments. But then there would be no need to change the attribute  
names at all (nor, for that matter, to put much effort into other  
attribute names following the design pattern. It just becomes another  
approach to namespaces with another centralisation process required). The  
question is what would convince the editors of the spec that there is in  
fact a use case for RDF in HTML which is what has led to the request to  
include RDFa (a form of RDF carefully designed to fit into HTML).

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle fran?ais -- hablo espa?ol -- jeg l?rer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 11 January 2009 21:19:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:09 UTC