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: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:06:22 +0100
Message-ID: <497399CE.9090508@danbri.org>
On 18/1/09 21:04, Shelley Powers wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will
>>>>>> never be either a workaround or compromise?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML
>>>>> side
>>>>> of RDFa not to use attribute whose qualified name has a colon in
>>>>> them to
>>>>> achieve DOM Consistency by changing RDFa instead of changing parsing?
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe the RDFa TF are in a position to singlehandedly
>>>> rescind a W3C Recommendation, ie.
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/.
>>>>
>>>> What they presumably could do is propose new work items within W3C,
>>>> which I'd guess would be more likely to be accepted if it had the
>>>> active enthusiasm of the core HTML5 team. Am cc:'ing TimBL here who
>>>> might have something more to add.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have an alternative design in mind, for expressing the
>>>> namespace mappings?
>>>
>>> The simplest thing is not to have mappings but to put the corresponding
>>> absolute URI wherever RDFa uses a CURIE.
>>
>> So this would be a kind of "interoperability profile" of RDFa, where
>> certain features approved of by REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 wouldn't be
>> used in some hypothetical HTML5 RDFa.
>>
>> If people can control their urge to use namespace abbreviations, and
>> stick to URIs directly, would this make your DOM-oriented concerns go
>> away?
>
> Took five minutes to make this change in my template. Ran through
> validator.nu. Results:
>
> Doesn't like the content-type. Didn't like profile on head. Having to
> remove the profile attribute in my head element limits usability, but
> I'm not going to throw myself on the sword for this one.
>
> Doesn't like property, doesn't like about. These are the RDFa attributes
> I'm using. The RDF extractor doesn't care that I used the URIs directly.

This sounds encouraging. Thanks for taking the time to try the 
experiment,  Shelley. But ... to be clear, are you putting full URIs in 
the @property attribute too? In 
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curieprocessing it says '@property, 
@datatype and @typeof support only CURIE values.'

(Can you post an example?)

Reading ...
"""Many of the attributes that hold URIs are also able to carry 'compact 
URIs' or CURIEs. A CURIE is a convenient way to represent a long URI, by 
replacing a leading section of the URI with a substitution token. It's 
possible for authors to define a number of substitution tokens as they 
see fit; the full URI is obtained by locating the mapping defined by a 
token from a list of in-scope tokens, and then simply concatenating the 
second part of the CURIE onto the mapped value."""

... I guess the fact that @property is supposed to be CURIE-only isn't a 
problem with parsers since this can be understood as a CURIE with no (or 
empty) substitution token.

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2009 13:06:22 UTC

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