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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:29:22 +0200, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
HTML5 is too crucial as a technology to allow arbitrary experimentation.
Arbitrary? Plus, consider the risk to HTML5: nothing. Browsers don't
need to do anything (except make the attributes
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
FWIW, when considering language complexity, just considering whether it
impacts user agents seems naïve. Eg, it impacts people reading the
specification, people writing documentation, people writing books, etc.
Fair enough.
Doesn't SQL in the browser affect all of
form then?)
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ben Adida [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:55 PM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: Kristof Zelechovski; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Manu Sporny'
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency
though I agree with others
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:55:07 +0200, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
FWIW, when considering language complexity, just considering whether it
impacts user agents seems naïve. Eg, it impacts people reading the
specification, people writing documentation, people writing
'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa statement consistency
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:55:07 +0200, Ben Adida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Especially given the copy paste authors you want to enable this for,
down the road.
I'm confused. CopyPaste is meant to abstract
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
SQL actually doesn't affect the HTML5 language,
Isn't that nitpicking a bit? It's part of the feature-set that a browser
would have to implement, part of the books that have to be written,
etc..., right?
I don't really think it makes sense to compare that
feature to
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
It seems you believe in code generators. I do not share your belief.
Creative Commons, YouTube, Flickr, etc... a lot of sites generate a
chunk of HTML for you to paste within your site to gain a feature. This
is a model that seems to work pretty well.
A comment Do
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
HTML5 is too crucial as a technology to allow arbitrary experimentation.
Please refrain from making wildly opinionated and loaded comments such
as this without logically backing up your argument Kristof. Many on this
list and off this list would view a number of HTML5
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
We have two options for having both human-readable and
machine-readable information in a document: write the structure and
generate the text or write the text and recover the structure. At the
very least, if you insist on having both, there must be a mechanism to
28 matches
Mail list logo
