- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:50:31 -0500
- To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4ECFFF97.5030809@openlinksw.com>
On 11/25/11 3:35 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > 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. Ultimately, we are going to end up with the obvious question: why isn't html+microdata being given the same standing as (x)html+rdfa? There is a mime type claims war raging re. who really owns: text/html. You know that html+microdata is the natural representation for: text/html. Thus, can we really save implementer the hassle of figuring all of this out. We shouldn't force syntax on anyone. There are many ways to represent EAV/SPO based directed graphs. If we are going to suggest anything, lets veer away from covert (x)html+rdfa vs html5+microdata wars re. mime type: text/html. It ultimately just infuriates implementers. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 21:01:11 UTC