W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Is RDFa ready to use with GRDDL?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:23:46 +0200
Message-ID: <44F6B8B2.3040408@w3.org>
To: Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org

Yoshio Fukushige wrote:
> Thank you Ivan, Ralph, Harry and Karl for the information.

You are most welcome!

> Per Karl[1], RDFa cannot be fully used in a conformant way to the XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1)
> but GRDDL will not be used with XHTML 2.0 that comes with full RDFa...
> Hmm, I wonder what people think about this.

First of all: you/we are all shooting at moving targets, which makes it
difficult to assess. GRDDL and RDFa are both under development. XHTML2
is in a working draft (not even last call), and there are lots of
discussions on how XHTML should evolve, which makes it difficult to
judge that, too.

> (1) Is there any discussion in the Semantic Web Deployment WG about making the RDFa
> syntax conformant to XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1)?

Yes. See the last paragraph of


the group should really start about now (summer on the Northern
Hemisphere is ending...:-), so some more specific answers should be
around in 1-2 months.

> (2) Is there any discussion in the HTML working group about making XHTML 1.2 (or later)
> which allows full RDFa ?

The discussions around whether an XHTML1.2 (or something similar) will
be developed or not and, if yes, in which form, is ongoing. The
paragraph I was referring to refers to that, too.

> (3) Is there any discussion in the HTML working group about drawing back the decision 
> (i.e. picking up again the profile attribute in XHTML 2.0)?

I do not know, I would suppose yes.

> (4) Is there any discussion in the GRDDL working group about changing the GRDDL definition
> so as for GRDDL to be used with XHTML 2.0 (without the profile attribute)?

The GRDDL group also considers the issue of using a GRDDL-like mechanism
for XML in general. Their charter:


says: "...It binds XML documents, especially XHTML documents, XHTML
profiles and XML namespace documents, to transformations...". How that
would be defined is still to be discussed and decided, of course...

> Well, for now, 
> I can live with invalid XHTML 1.* documents with full RDFa which can be processed by GRDDL
> (with my ears shut) only if there supplied (XSL) transformations,
> but I hope we can reach a consensus which resolves the inconsistency.

I hope this helps!


> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Aug/0150.html


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf#Me

Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 10:23:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:58 UTC