Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Shelley Powers ha scritto: The point I'm making is that you set a precedent, and a good one I think: giving precedence to not invented here. In other words, to not re-invent new ways of doing something, but to look for established processes, models, et al already in place, implemented,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Shelley Powers ha scritto: The point I'm making is that you set a precedent, and a good one I think: giving precedence to not invented here. In other words, to not re-invent new ways of doing something, but to look for established processes, models, et al already in place, implemented,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote: It seems that you'd expect RDFa to be specced out before solving related problems (so to push their solution). I don't think that's the right path to follow, instead known issues must be solved before making a decision, so that the specification can tell

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never be either a workaround

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Eduard Pascual wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the WhatWG working group members

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Ian Hickson wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Shelley Powers wrote: The more use cases there are, the better informed the results will be. The point isn't to provide use cases. The point is to highlight a serious problem with this working group--there is a mindset of what the future of

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Jim Jewett wrote: (But existing W3C standard probably isn't strong enough.) s/probably/certainly/ -Boris P.S. For anyone who cares, I suggest reading http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a for my reasons for saying the above.

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: Take you guys seriously...OK, yeah. I don't doubt that the work will be challenging, or problematical. I'm not denying Henri's claim. And I didn't claim to be the one who would necessarily come up with the solutions, either, but that I

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 18, 2009, at 02:02, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote: Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes already existing in HTML5, and adding a few more. Also, RDFa

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On 17/1/09 23:30, L. David Baron wrote: On Saturday 2009-01-17 22:25 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: The story of RDF is very different. Of the top four engines, only Gecko has RDF functionality. It was implemented at a time when RDF was a young W3C REC and stuff that were W3C RECs were implemented

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On 18/1/09 00:24, Henri Sivonen wrote: No. However, most of the time, when people publish HTML, they do it to elicit browser behavior when a user loads the HTML document in a browser. Most users of the Web barely know what a browser is, let alone HTML. They're just putting information

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 00:24, Henri Sivonen wrote: No. However, most of the time, when people publish HTML, they do it to elicit browser behavior when a user loads the HTML document in a browser. Most users of the Web barely know what a browser is, let

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: But back to expectations. I've seen references elsewhere to Ian being booked through the end of this quarter. I may have misheard, but in any case, my point is the same: if this is awaiting something from Ian, it will be prioritized

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web post, which caused the

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: And regardless of the fact that I jumped to conclusions about WhatWG membership, I do not believe I was inaccurate with the earlier part of this email. Sam started a new thread in the discussion about the

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never be either a workaround or compromise? Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML side of RDFa not to use attribute whose qualified name has a

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never be either a workaround or compromise? Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML side of RDFa not to use

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never be either a workaround or compromise? Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never be either a workaround or compromise? Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will never be either a workaround or compromise?

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On 18/1/09 21:04, Shelley Powers wrote: Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote: On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Am Sonntag, den 18.01.2009, 21:30 + schrieb Eduard Pascual: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/01/xml-sunday shows the commentor

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Dan Brickley wrote: ... I guess the fact that @property is supposed to be CURIE-only isn't a problem with parsers since this can be understood as a CURIE with no (or empty) substitution token. Actually, most RDFa parsers will break if full URIs are used in RDFa attributes: in RDFa all

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Shelley Powers wrote: The more use cases there are, the better informed the results will be. The point isn't to provide use cases. The point is to highlight a serious problem with this working group--there is a mindset of what the future of HTML will look like, and

[whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related to HTML5. The purpose behind RDFa is to provide a way to embed complex information into a web document, in such a way that a machine can extract this information and combine it with other data extracted from other

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related to HTML5. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am far from an apologist for Hixie, (nor for that matter and I a strong advocate for RDF), but I

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related to HTML5. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am far from an apologist for Hixie, (nor for that matter and

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Dan Brickley wrote: On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related to HTML5. Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am far from an apologist for Hixie,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related to HTML5. Perhaps. Or

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: Shelley Powers wrote: So, why accept that we have to use MathML in order to solve the problems of formatting mathematical formula? Why not start from scratch, and devise a new approach? Ian explored (and answered) that here:

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 17, 2009, at 20:33, Dan Brickley wrote: Good question. I for one expect RDFa to be accessible to Javascript. http://code.google.com/p/rdfquery/wiki/Introduction - http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/markup/markup.html is a nice example of code that does something useful in

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: Shelley Powers wrote: So, why accept that we have to use MathML in order to solve the problems of formatting mathematical formula? Why not start from scratch, and devise a new approach? Ian explored (and answered) that

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote: I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the beginning. I'm not sure if the same procedure was also applied to the canvas object, as well as the SQL

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied, and we've shown how it is not a disruptive solution to HTML5. Others may differ, but my read is that the case is a strong one. But I will

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 17, 2009, at 20:33, Dan Brickley wrote: Good question. I for one expect RDFa to be accessible to Javascript. http://code.google.com/p/rdfquery/wiki/Introduction - http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/markup/markup.html is a nice example of code that

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote: I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the beginning. I'm not sure if the same procedure was also applied to the canvas object, as

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied, and we've shown how it is not a disruptive solution to HTML5. Others may differ, but my read is that the case is a

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers shell...@burningbird.net wrote: I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied, and we've shown how it is not a

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Saturday 2009-01-17 22:25 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: The story of RDF is very different. Of the top four engines, only Gecko has RDF functionality. It was implemented at a time when RDF was a young W3C REC and stuff that were W3C RECs were implemented less critically than nowadays.

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote: Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes already existing in HTML5, and adding a few more. Also, RDFa uses CURIEs which in turn use the XML namespace mapping context. I would assume no differences in the DOM based

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:43, Shelley Powers wrote: Henri Sivonen wrote: On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote: I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the beginning. I'm not sure if the same

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

The assumption is incorrect. Please compare http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/xmlns-dom.html and http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/xmlns-dom.xhtml Same bytes, different media type. I put together a very crude demonstration of JavaScript access of a specific RDFa attribute, about. It's

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote: On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote: Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes already existing in HTML5, and adding a few more. Also, RDFa uses CURIEs which in turn use the XML namespace

Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: But back to expectations. I've seen references elsewhere to Ian being booked through the end of this quarter. I may have misheard, but in any case, my point is the same: if this is awaiting something from Ian, it will be prioritized and dealt with

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Adida Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:30 AM To: Silvia Pfeiffer Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: Make a technical argument that is conclusive and people will listen. We have already done that at great length, using explicit

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Elliotte Harold wrote: Henri Sivonen wrote: The DOM consistency issue is that the xmlns attributes are DOM-wise different in text/html and application/xhtml+xml due to legacy reasons. The attribute that reads xmlns:cc=... is represented differently in the DOM

[whatwg] RDFa

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks to me as if RDFa uses namespaced identifiers nowhere outside attribute values right now. So couldn't you just introduce a rdf specific namespacing system for example like eRDF does[1]? This way, RDF parsers could still look up metainformation about

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Philipp Serafin wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks to me as if RDFa uses namespaced identifiers nowhere outside attribute values right now. So couldn't you just introduce a rdf specific namespacing Yes, that is exactly what we're considering for non-XML HTML. -Ben

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Ian Hickson wrote: Both introducing a namespace prefix processing model and introducing DOM inconsistencies at the XML/HTML boundary intentionally are simply not an option in WHATWG specs at this point. What is the evidence you have for making this decision, specifically what is the evidence

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Philipp Serafin wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks to me as if RDFa uses namespaced identifiers nowhere outside attribute values right now. So couldn't you just introduce a rdf specific namespacing system for example like eRDF does[1]? This way,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Ian Hickson wrote: Note however that I do not expect the namespace issue to materially affect the RDFa feedback; I'm sure there are many ways of addressing the problem space of RDF that do not involve having to use namespace prefixes. You would be incorrect to make this assumption. Much

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Ian Hickson wrote: In the WHATWG the editor (me, for HTML5) makes the decisions, How does that jive with the W3C process, which I thought HTML5 was now following given the joint work with W3C? -Ben

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ben Adida wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: In the WHATWG the editor (me, for HTML5) makes the decisions, How does that jive with the W3C process, which I thought HTML5 was now following given the joint work with W3C? The W3C HTML working group and the WHATWG group are

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ben Adida wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: Note however that I do not expect the namespace issue to materially affect the RDFa feedback; I'm sure there are many ways of addressing the problem space of RDF that do not involve

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general, I find it surprising that HTML5 wants to reinvent everything, rather than at least partially rely on work done in other groups. I don't see it as such. HTML5 is analysing the situation from all aspects with a view

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: I don't see it as such. HTML5 is analysing the situation from all aspects with a view of making sure the aims and tradition of HTML are being followed. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There have been significant deviations from the tradition of HTML. HTML was

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Henri Sivonen wrote: On Aug 24, 2008, at 00:15, Ben Adida wrote: The DOM consistency issue is that the xmlns attributes are DOM-wise different in text/html and application/xhtml+xml due to legacy reasons. The attribute that reads xmlns:cc=... is represented differently in the DOM when the

Re: [whatwg] RDFa discussion

for arbitrary monolingual dictionaries. - Original Message - From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:50 PM Subject: [whatwg] RDFa discussion It seems that there is a lot of discussion here but I haven't really seen much progress. Part

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:25 AM To: Henri Sivonen Cc: Ben Adida; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; 'Manu Sporny'; Kristof Zelechovski Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency I like GRDDL, too

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:46 AM To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency Kristof Zelechovski wrote: HTML5 is too crucial as a technology to allow arbitrary experimentation. Please refrain from making wildly opinionated

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

but still not very good. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:33 AM To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features Kristof Zelechovski wrote: While Google owns the Web

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa uses CURIEs, not QNames

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,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa uses CURIEs, not QNames

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa uses CURIEs, not QNames

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa uses CURIEs, not QNames

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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,

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa uses CURIEs, not QNames

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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.

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

supported. Chris -Original Message- From: Ben Adida [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:05 PM To: Henri Sivonen Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; Kristof Zelechovski; 'Manu Sporny' Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency I'm getting mixed signals about the extent

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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?

Re: [whatwg] RDFa uses CURIEs, not QNames

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Toby A Inkster Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:28 PM To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency Kristof Zelechovski wrote: The goal of the specification is to provide a set of rules that conformant user agents must

[whatwg] RDFa discussion

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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?

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

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

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

(reposting a private email to the list...) Manu Sporny wrote: ... The syntax document explains each bullet point more clearly in the Introduction section[1]. In other words, 1) CURIEs always map to a IRI. 2) They don't have any constraints on the reference portion (the part after the

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features (was: RDFa Problem Statement)

On Aug 27, 2008, at 16:33, Smylers wrote: So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they are so long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional syntax to avoid having to write them out. Moreover, having to look up the URIs is a major pain when writing

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

Henri Sivonen wrote: On Aug 27, 2008, at 16:33, Smylers wrote: So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they are so long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional syntax to avoid having to write them out. Moreover, having to look up the URIs is a major

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:18, Julian Reschke wrote: Henri Sivonen wrote: On Aug 27, 2008, at 16:33, Smylers wrote: So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they are so long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional syntax to avoid having to write them

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

While we are at that, why not resurrect semantic [profile] instead of adding syntactic [prefix]? Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:18 PM To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

anything appended to them without dereferencing them first. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:57 PM To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features Namespaces are difficult for people

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

Kristof Zelechovski wrote: I think RDFa has already happened: you know what it is and how to use it. Yes, you are correct - RDFa has, more or less, already happened. It will be an official W3C standard in the next couple of months and will be supported in XHTML1.1 and XHTML2. Some are currently

Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:06 PM To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency Kristof Zelechovski wrote: I think RDFa has already happened: you know what it is and how to use it. Yes, you are correct

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

Kristof Zelechovski wrote: I have to repeat Ian's question now: what happens when the server with a custom vocabulary definition goes down? Does it take a part of the semantic Web down along with it? If it's a popular vocabulary, it's probably been cached appropriately. If it's an edge-case

  1   2   >