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

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:11:07 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <C7749E3B.BDA0%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

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

Exactly. Looking at [1] makes me think that there are plenty of evidence for
extending-the-language-schema-through-DTD re RDFa ;)

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:04:49 +0100
> 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>
> Subject: Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request
> 
> 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
> determine."
> 
> 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 10:11:41 UTC

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