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

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:18:08 +0100
Message-ID: <4B4EEF60.10604@lachy.id.au>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> Neither RDFa, nor Microdata are extension mechanisms that allow
>>>>> adding "independently developed vocabularies" to HTML.
>>>> Could you describe the criteria by which one can recognise a mechanism
>>>> for allowing the addition of independently developed vocabularies? I'm
>>>> baffled as to what the point of RDFa and Microdata would be if not
>>>> exactly that.
>>> It would be helpful to demonstrate *how* Ruby or ITS can be added using
>>> RDFa or Microdata. (examples would be sufficient)
>> Your question doesn't make sense. Neither Ruby nor ITS are
>> vocabularies designed for RDFa or Microdata, and I'm sure you are well
>> aware of that. No-one has claimed that those specific vocabularies
>> could be added using RDFa or Microdata, so you seem to be making a
>> strawman argument.
> "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit
> independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag
> Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents."
> So if somebody claims that RDFa or Microdata are covered by this part of
> the charter then it's *natural* to ask how they can fulfill the
> requirement.

They fulfil that requirement by allowing the inclusion of *some other* 
independent vocabularies.  Just because they do not permit the inclusion 
of the 3 examples given in the charter, does not mean they don't qualify.

And because Microdata is for describing semantics of documents, it is 
also covered by:

"A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents 
and applications on the World Wide Web. This will be a complete 
specification, not a delta specification."

(In fact, per that requirement alone, Microdata should be part of the 
main HTML5 spec, as opposed to the delta spec it has become, but we have 
to live with the group decision.)

>> Do you consider the following to be "independently developed
>> vocabularies", as referred to by the charter or not? If not, why not?
>> What is the criteria you are using to determining what is or is not an
>> independent vocabulary?
>> * Microdata Vocabularies for vCard, vEvent and Licensing, as described
>> in the Microdata draft, and other Microformats that may be mapped to
>> Microdata by the Microformats community
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#mdvocabs
>> * The Creative Commons vocabulary for RDFa?
>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa
>> * Dublin Core, FOAF, etc.
>> Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as
>> they have been designed for doing so.
> Of course these are independently developed, and also some kind of
> vocabulary. Nobody is disputing that.

So, then do you agree that finding a way to include those would be 
covered by the statement "The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a 
mechanism to permit independently developed vocabularies", despite them 
not being listed explicitly as examples?  If not, why not?

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:18:43 UTC

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