On Aug 28, 2008, at 19:46, Ben Adida wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Same goes with MySpace widgets. Paste one thing, get the widget.
Who's
going to go paste two things in two different places? It's really
important to make HTML the carrier of this information.
It seems to me that this line of
On Aug 28, 2008, at 19:49, Ben Adida wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Having
something-other-than-data-curie=dc:http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/;
How about
div prefix=dc:http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/;
h2 property=dc:titleA Fun Article/h2
by h3 property=dc:creatorBen Adida/h3
/div
?
This
Having alternate interleaved content streams is a new concept on the web; it
has happened before but only to replaced elements that are guests to the
document but not to the main text. Returning to Ben's example, the content
verifier should verify that an element claimed to claimed to contain the
On Aug 29, 2008, at 00:29, Ben Adida wrote:
Plus, consider the risk to HTML5: nothing.
I don't believe that is the case.
If I've understood history correctly, introducing Namespaces into XML
was primarily a requirement stipulated by the RDF community. XML got
Namespaces, but then at
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't believe that is the case.
If I've understood history correctly, introducing Namespaces into XML
was primarily a requirement stipulated by the RDF community. XML got
Pointer, please?
Namespaces, but then at least notable parts of the RDF community figured
that
Please. We both agree that a job position has a title. This title
attribute, when applied to a job position, is just fine; you can apply it to
a book here and to a job position there and you see from the context what
kind of a title it is. But you cannot apply a title of a job position to a
Does not use QNames is not an advantage any more than does not require
the user to be a USA citizen. So you could have listed that as well.
I would like to append the following to the disadvantages:
The interface A[property] is very misleading. You read it as The property
of this anchor is
Ben Adida wrote:
Shannon wrote:
link rel=vocabulary
href=http://some.official.vocabulary/1.1/metadata.cm;
Not workable, as this in the HEAD of the document and oftentimes we
simply can't expect users to be able to modify the head of the document
(widgets, blog engines where you can
Manu Sporny wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or gets
taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because
Subject means scope, not namespace. Example: Hamlet was written
William Shakespeare.
Chris
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shannon
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:31 AM
To: Ben Adida
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; Eduard Pascual
Subject: Re: [whatwg]
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:08:37 +0200, Manu Sporny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The idea and premise of RDF is sort of attractive (people being able to
do their own thing, unified data model, etc), though I agree with others
that the complexity (lengthy URIs,
On Aug 28, 2008, at 15:31, Paul Prescod wrote:
I don't really understand why there is any debate about the utility of
metadata in general. Are you also against microformats? Title
elements? The meta element?
It seems obvious to me that a) metadata has been a huge success on the
web (the
Robert O'Callahan:
Why not just open new window and move the playing audio element from the
old window into the new window? You might need to call play() on it again in
the new window, but you shouldn't lose your place in the stream.
Why shouldn’t that throw a WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR?
--
Cameron
Manu Sporny wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or
gets
taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:20:21 +0200, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert O'Callahan:
Why not just open new window and move the playing audio element from
the old window into the new window? You might need to call play() on it
again in the new window, but you shouldn't lose your
James Graham wrote:
Given the problems with using DNS as your registry noted above and the
fact that the recommended solution to this problem is to use a small
number of registries built atop DNS that promise greater longevity than
DNS registrations can ensure, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
As far as I can tell they both have the same (subset of) problems. They
create a level of indirection and require keeping namespace prefix
declarations around.
It's important to note that, in our experience and in our design, the
level of indirection is a feature, not
I'm also a Pandora fan, and I actually thought of another use. In addition
to popping out a separate player, Pandora also opens new tabs/windows to
browse pages about artists/songs. These pages allow you to listen to
samples, but listening to them does not pause the player. It would be pretty
cool
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't know what the right way to find the useful bits is, but just
telling people out there to publish metadata and expecting use cases to
emerge later isn't a good way, since that approach wastes a lot of
people's effort.
In this email you claim there are no use cases.
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Does not use QNames is not an advantage any more than does not require
the user to be a USA citizen. So you could have listed that as well.
I would like to append the following to the disadvantages:
The interface A[property] is very misleading. You read it as The
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you see the problem to be solved as RDF-in-HTML. I would prefer
the problem defined as Metadata-in-HTML.
It seems to me that everything they want to do could be done with the
data attribute except that attribute is meant
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Ben Adidawrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
As far as I can tell they both have the same (subset of) problems. They
create a level of indirection and require keeping namespace prefix
declarations around.
It's important to note that, in our experience and in our
Rather meta-property than metadata-property, otherwise seems quite
reasonable.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Houston
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:29 PM
To: Shannon
Cc: Ben Adida; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; Eduard Pascual
Ben Adida wrote:
It's important to note that, in our experience and in our design, the
level of indirection is a feature, not a bug. One rarely uses a
vocabulary for just one property.
In my experience, that level of indirection is a disaster. It is the
single most problematic part of XML as
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I like the GRDDL approach of seeing RDF there by looking at non-RDF
things just right--with the modification that the person who wants to
look just right is the one supplying the transform.
There's a really simple algorithm for deciding whether to introduce a
feature,
Julian Reschke wrote:
Parts of the community are totally happy with them.
You have got to be kidding me. I can't think of anyone who is totally
happy with namespaces in XML. I can't even think of anybody who is happy
with. The best I think anyone claims is tolerance. Even full-time XML
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Do you think that HTML5 should allow arbitrary experimentation under the
banner Let us just do it and we shall see?
I don't think HTML 5 should allow arbitrary experimentation.
That doesn't change the fact that the HTML 5 spec is full of arbitrary
Elliotte Harold wrote:
In my experience, that level of indirection is a disaster. It is the
single most problematic part of XML as practiced. It destroyed XPointer.
It takes what should be a simple, atomic value and makes it context
dependent.
That's not the same thing at all.
XML
Elliotte Harold wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Parts of the community are totally happy with them.
You have got to be kidding me. I can't think of anyone who is totally
happy with namespaces in XML. I can't even think of anybody who is happy
with. The best I think anyone claims is tolerance.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Now we have people from the RDF community asking for CURIEs in HTML.
No. I'm not from the RDF community. I am from Creative Commons. I
represent Creative Commons at the W3C. I have done no research or active
work on RDF, only on integrating RDF in HTML, because RDF was
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather meta-property than metadata-property, otherwise seems quite
reasonable.
Chris
div id=Sarah
meta-namespace=foo:http://mysite.com/foo/;
meta-foo=instanceof:Person;about:Sarah
pspan
The goal of the specification is to provide a set of rules that conformant
user agents must obey out of the box, without any extensions. Features that
are supposed to be ignored do not make good candidates for including in the
specification, except as extensions to HTML that are explicitly
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
The goal of the specification is to provide a set of rules that conformant
user agents must obey out of the box, without any extensions. Features that
are supposed to be ignored do not make good candidates for including in the
specification, except as extensions to
Greg Houston wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather meta-property than metadata-property, otherwise seems quite
reasonable.
Chris
div id=Sarah
meta-namespace=foo:http://mysite.com/foo/;
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I always copy paste, too. That's my point. Namespace waste my time
almost every day.
If all you did was produce content and no one ever consumed it, indeed
namespaces would be a waste of time.
But the time you're spending is not wasted if it helps consumers make
more
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Isn't the whole point of splitting URIs into two and introducing syntax
into later putting the part back together that the length of the URI
gets amortized when the same prefix is used many times even though in
the case of a single occurrence, the indirection syntax
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:20:21 +0200, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert O'Callahan:
Why not just open new window and move the playing audio element
from the old window into the new window? You might need to call
play() on it again in the new window, but
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it seems you agree with the principles of adding one (or more)
attributes. But the requirement here, for Creative Commons and Digital
Bazaar and the UK National Archives and ... is to get proper RDF in
there. So once you
I think WHATWG is open to wisdom from outside. However, accepting wisdom
makes no sense, wisdom should be understood and rationally implemented. You
have confused wisdom and faith. And wisdom is about how things work or can
work, not about how you spell this and that.
The proposition was about
Greg Houston wrote:
Setting a precedent for adding multiple new properties to be added to
most of the elements for one metadata specification is something I
hope does not happen.
I think you're confused about this being one metadata specification.
RDF is well established and enables you to
Oops, now I have to back off. Wisdom is not something you can understand;
it is the ability to learn and use knowledge. There is no way you can
accept wisdom because it is partly innate and partly acquired by strenuous
mental exercise. I got confused myself. Shame on me.
Chris
-Original
On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't believe that is the case.
If I've understood history correctly, introducing Namespaces into
XML was primarily a requirement stipulated by the RDF community.
XML got
Pointer, please?
(Note: I've been discussing just such a CSS-like rdf format with Ben
offlist, inspired directly by Eduard's proposal earlier.)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Houston wrote:
My suggestion keeps the metadata code tidy, and more human readable.
I'm going to keep my answer somewhat brief because Manu and I have
privately discussed wrapping up this thread so we don't take up too much
of people's time. I'll focus on simple points.
(Note: I've been discussing just such a CSS-like rdf format with Ben
offlist, inspired directly by Eduard's
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to keep my answer somewhat brief because Manu and I have
privately discussed wrapping up this thread so we don't take up too much
of people's time. I'll focus on simple points.
(Note: I've been discussing just
Ben Adida wrote:
We're not dealing with an existing technology that is going to be made
somehow incompatible because of CURIE support. None of the existing HTML
tools will have to change (they already ignore attributes they don't
know, given that, e.g., a number of JavaScript libraries use
This will be the last post about RDFa that both Ben and I will be making
for at least the next couple of weeks. The conversation started in this
community regarding Creative Common's decision to use RDFa to not only
express licensing concerns, but other important metadata surrounding
creative
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Is this approximately your intended message? If so, then how do you
square this with the plain-to-see usefulness and heavy adoption of CSS?
CSS is great: it actually separates semantics and presentation.
I also feel the comparison to CSS is quite exact - with CSS you
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Elliotte Harold wrote:
I fully expect to be revisiting this whole mess in 5-10 years to come up
with a real spec, after we've seen which of the experiments succeeded
and which failed. Then again maybe we'll just decide that specs don't
matter, and live with whatever
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
The goal of the specification is to provide a set of rules that
conformant
user agents must obey out of the box, without any extensions.
Features that
are supposed to be ignored do not make good candidates for
including in the
specification, except as extensions
WHATWG cannot purge existing ignored elements and properties but it can try
avoiding adding new ones.
Besides, I wonder if the promoter of the DFN element make it clear that he
expected it to be ignored by the browser, as is the case with RDFa.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
It seems that there is a lot of discussion here but I haven't really seen
much progress. Part of the problem seems to be that there are some pretty
fundamental disagreements on what we are trying to do and whether anyone
cares to do it. :-)
In order to better document this back-and-forth, and
WHATWG is not limited to addressing browser vendors' concerns but it
considers them important enough to respect their compatible requirements and
vetoes. It is unreasonable to expect third-party add-on designers to get
equal weight as the browser vendors have.
Chris
-Original Message-
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Is this approximately your intended message? If so, then how do you
square this with the plain-to-see usefulness and heavy adoption of CSS?
CSS is great: it actually separates semantics and
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Manu Sporny wrote:
There are a number of us that were pulled into the discussion by members
in this community and it is unfortunate that our explanations of the
semantic data expression requirements have been understood as beat(ing)
everyone over the head[1]. That was
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't believe that is the case.
If I've understood history correctly, introducing Namespaces into XML
was primarily a requirement stipulated by the RDF community. XML got
Pointer, please?
Henri Sivonen wrote:
If I've understood history correctly, introducing Namespaces into XML
was primarily a requirement stipulated by the RDF community. XML got
Pointer, please?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0116.html
Thanks.
I like GRDDL, too, but it has
Hello again all,
A couple more comments.
*When is anything ever deleted?*
Maybe i missed it, but where does appCache deletion happen?
Something that Gears user's have done is to serve an empty manifest file.
The results are a close approximation to having deleted the resource store.
I would
58 matches
Mail list logo
