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

[whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:27:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3d4032300901171027l72ae0411jc6cb23a4d8748f34@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
<shelleyp at burningbird.net> wrote:
> The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related
> to HTML5.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps not.  I am far from an apologist for Hixie, (nor
for that matter and I a strong advocate for RDF), but I offer the
following question and observation.

> The purpose behind RDFa is to provide a way to embed complex information
> into a web document, in such a way that a machine can extract this
> information and combine it with other data extracted from other web pages.
> It is not a way to document private data, or data that is meant to be used
> by some JavaScript-based application. The sole purpose of the data is for
> external extraction and combination.

So, I take it that it isn't essential that RDFa information be
included in the DOM?  This is not rhetorical: I honestly don't know
the answer to this question.

> So, why accept that we have to use MathML in order to solve the problems of
> formatting mathematical formula? Why not start from scratch, and devise a
> new approach?

Ian explored (and answered) that here:

http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-April/014372.html

Key to Ian's decision was the importance of DOM integration for this
vocabulary.  If DOM integration is essential for RDFa, then perhaps
the same principles apply.  If not, perhaps some other principles may
apply.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 10:27:42 UTC

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