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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:02:41 +0100
Message-ID: <op.unypmrer64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:43:12 +0100, Shelley Powers  
<shelleyp at burningbird.net> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers  
>> <shelleyp at burningbird.net> wrote:
>>> And regardless of the fact that I jumped to conclusions about WhatWG  
>>> membership, I do not believe I was inaccurate with the earlier part of  
>>> this email. Sam started a new thread in the discussion about the  
>>> issues of namespace and how, perhaps we could find a way to work the  
>>> issues through with RDFa. My god, I use RDFa in my pages, and they  
>>> load fine with any browser, including IE. I have to believe its  
>>> incorporation into HTML5 is not the daunting effort that others make  
>>> it seem to be.'
>>
>> You ask us to take you seriously and consider your feedback, it would  
>> be nice if you took what e.g. Henri wrote seriously as well.  
>> Integrating a new feature in HTML is not a simple task, even if the new  
>> feature loads and renders fine in Internet Explorer.
>>
> Take you guys seriously...OK, yeah.

Well, if you don't there is not much point debating with each other, is  
there?


> I don't doubt that the work will be challenging, or problematical. I'm  
> not denying Henri's claim. And I didn't claim to be the one who would  
> necessarily come up with the solutions, either, but that I would help in  
> those instances that I could.

About forty minutes ago you claimed that you had to believe incorperating  
RDFa is not the daunting effort that others make it out to be. (See the  
quoted portion above.)


> What I did express in the later emails, is what others have expressed  
> who have asked about RDFa in HTML5: are we wasting our time even trying?  
> That it seems like a decision has already been made, and we're spinning  
> our wheels even attempting to find solutions. There's a difference  
> between not being willing to negotiate, compromise, work the problem,  
> and just spitting into the wind for no good.

The way features traditionally have been going into HTML5 has been through  
use cases, research, etc. Ian and others are proposing to do the exact  
same thing for RDFa. This means it will take a while before there is a  
definitive answer and it will also require work to be done by interested  
parties. In comment threads on your blog various RDFa proponents seemed to  
be willing to help out with this.

Having that data available will allow people to more objectively judge  
whether RDFa should be integrated in HTML5, and if so, how. Without having  
that data available RDFa proponents will simply say yes and detractors  
will simply say no and nobody is any wiser as to who is right.


> No, Ian's listing of tasks pretty much precluded any input into the  
> decision making process other than his own. I never see "we" when Ian  
> writes, I only see "I".

If he makes a decision and a majority of people disagree with him based on  
the data provided I'm sure he'll change his mind or improve his own  
research trying to convince the rest of the WG. This has happened before.

Also, input into the process can certainly be (and has been) given, in the  
form of research, use cases, etc.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2009 09:02:41 UTC

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