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 11:26:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4B4EF13C.8040308@lachy.id.au>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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 problem here is that you're somehow categorising the list of 
examples given in the charter, and using that to somehow limit the class 
of independent vocabularies that are being referred to by the charter. 
I do not believe that is a reasonable interpretation.  The actual 
requirement in the charter just says "independently developed 
vocabularies", without placing any restrictions on what type of 
independent vocabularies are being referred to.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:26:37 UTC

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