W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > November 2011

Re: how dirty can the HTML be, and still be RDFa?

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:35:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnFq8Mk5N3gz=GNVzVWGzirqZDnSCGc4=t3sWR-39o+FkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com>
Cc: "public-xg-webid@w3.org" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
Hi Peter,

The RDFa snippet in the spec is informative, and you are free to tweak it
as long as the resulting RDF graph matches the WebID profile [1] and the
SPARQL ASK query [2]. We're using the current RDFa REC spec which is RDFa
1.0, but we'll soon switch to RDFa 1.1 once soon as it reaches a more
stable status (it should come to Last Call in a couple of months). I'm in
the RDFa WG so I'll make sure to report back. I posted a RDFa 1.1 snippet
earlier this week on the mailing list [3]. RDFa 1.1 has several
improvements leading to simpler markup, plays well with HTML5 and isn't
as restrictive as RDFa 1.0 re doctypes.


[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Nov/0154.html

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Peter Williams <home_pw@msn.com> wrote:

>  blogspot is free (like wordpress), and consumer grade. ost importanbtly
> to me, its part of the google family, and thusi works with a google IDP
> login (that is now mapped onto US realty logins, via Azure's openid/ws-fedp
> gateways).
> With one edit to a simple template, blogger did allow me to change the
> html tag's header (to comply with RDFa) and add some namespaces. And, it
> did not strip out the marked up material in the blog post that followed,
> which came from the current spec.
> But, the result is nasty, when tested using hte W3C validator. Its not
> that nasty however, as the webid test suite's tool chain shows:
> http://webid.fcns.eu/lookup.php?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fyorkporc.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fnothing.html%23me&submit=+Lookup+&html=0
> Not suprisingly, uriburner got something useful
> http://webid.fcns.eu/lookup.php?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fyorkporc.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F11%2Fnothing.html%23me&submit=+Lookup+&html=0
> Now, the point is, regardless of the fact that it doesnt validate per the
> schema, 2 tools do seem to be happy. One (uriburner) is probably doing lots
> of guessing and intuiting data, and the other ill guess is simpler - and
> simply parsing the (dirty) HTML, per the standard -
> Now, I could go to my Microsoft CA and mint 1000 .p12 files whose certs
> have the relevant blogspot post URI, use the users password to encrypt the
> file, post off a download URI to the user's registred email address, and
> also machine post 1000 user profiles in RDFa to such each of 1000 such
> entrie s on that one blog site (creating 1000 "foaf cards" formally, each
> on their own URI, and each with hashtag of #, and the cert). But, is that
> kind of dirty HTML intended be acceptable and consumable by the typical
> webid validation agent?
> Im hoping the answer is yes. I need it really simple (and what I did above
> satisfies that rule).
> it really matters (to me) that I can use commodity web stuff, with sites
> powered by multi-vendor websso, works alongside Google Apps, hotmail, etc
> At some point, the keys in the webid profile will have to cooperate with
> the more formal CA-managed certs that realtors maintain (so they can submit
> signed PDF documents to the US govt realty sites). But, that can wait.
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 20:35:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:48 UTC