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

Re: Is RDFa ready to use with GRDDL?

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:05:04 -0400
Message-ID: <44F85A30.5070700@torrez.us>
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.
> 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.
> (1) Is there any discussion in the Semantic Web Deployment WG about making the RDFa
> syntax conformant to XHTML 1.0 (or 1.1)?
> (2) Is there any discussion in the HTML working group about making XHTML 1.2 (or later)
> which allows full RDFa ?
> (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)?
> (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)?

All the right questions we are all trying to figure out. Although I
mostly think about (1) that when answered could help
kickstart/accelerate RDF(a) adoption in a big way.

> 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.

This is what I've doing up to know. It's either XSL or you simply pass
it through a parser like mine [http://torrez.us/rdfa]. Although, I was
talking to Uldis Bojars from SIOC/PingTheSemanticWeb.com that we need a
way to know for sure in < XHTML 2.0 whether there are triples in the
page or not.

Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 16:05:29 UTC

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