Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> It seems inconsistent to me to say on the one hand that the RDFa Task
> Force doesn't have to coordinate with the HTML WG because its work is
> XHTML-specific, but then on the other hand that the RDFa Task Force's
> work product can be applied to the text/html serialization of HTML. It
> seems to me you have taken both positions on this thread.

Hi Maciej,

Yes, I see how I gave that impression, and I apologize.

What I should have said is:

1) the RDFa Task Force didn't need to coordinate with the HTML5 WG on
RDFa *in XHTML1.1*, although of course we welcomed (and got some)
feedback. Note that the RDFa Task Force includes members of the XHTML2
WG (previously the HTML WG), and that we were in fact very much synced
with HTML until the W3C HTML reorg, which happened pretty late in the
game as far as RDFa is concerned.

2) the RDFa Task Force believes that the syntax we've chosen for RDFa
lends itself nicely to HTML5 integration, and of course we did this on
purpose. I hope that's seen as a positive thing, we certainly meant it
in the spirit of an eventual collaboration.

3) the RDFa Task Force does *not* have the authority to dictate RDFa for
HTML5, of course. That said, HTML5 *does* have in its charter the goal
of including RDFa. This is what we've spent time discussing.

In other words, we built the RDFa syntax to make HTML5 integration as
easy as possible, but we don't pretend that it's a done deal, and we're
actively discussing the feedback we're getting.

I wish some of this feedback were more constructive, less about personal
taste, and more about substantive technical arguments.

That said, we understand and agree with some of that feedback (e.g.
@xmlns) and we're actively looking for ways to address it. In the
process, we are experimenting with some deployments in HTML4/5, since of
course these are required to demonstrate use cases. Other folks are
trying these deployments on their own. I believe this shows demand for
the features offered by RDFa.

I hope this makes things clearer.


Received on Saturday, 28 February 2009 22:57:53 UTC