W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:04:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4B4EEC41.4040302@gmx.de>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> ...
> I must wonder how one can think this is not the case. Maybe I've missed
> something, but, what are in your opinion, Julian, "extension mechanisms that
> allow adding independently developed vocabularies to HTML" - can you give
> examples, please?
> ...

There are different kinds of extension mechanisms. Depending on how they 
work, they are useful for different requirements.

I never did dispute that RDFa or Microdata are extension mechanisms, nor 
that they allow to include independently developed vocabularies.

However, the charter gives three very concrete examples, ITS, Ruby, and 
RDFa, and all these examples extend the HTML *syntax*. Neither RDFa nor 
Microdata offer this kind of extensibility.

The discussion of whether this kind of extensibility is desirable is 
totally orthogonal btw. All I'm saying is: I do not believe that RDFa or 
Microdata are solutions that work for what the charter asked for. I 
could be convinced by a demonstration.

Back to your question - examples are in the charter:

"Whether this occurs through the extensibility mechanism of XML, whether 
it is also allowed in the classic HTML serialization, and whether it 
uses the DTD and Schema modularization techniques, is for the HTML WG to 

So, for instance, extending the language schema (be it DTD or whatever) 
or XML namespaces are *examples* for these kind of extensibility.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:05:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC