On 04/29/2013 09:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 4/29/13 1:29 PM, Andrea Splendiani wrote:Hi,ok. Let's see if we can offer xhtml+RDFa as an additional format, and see how people react. I'll spread the idea a bit.Why stop at xhtml+RDFa when you also have: 1. html+microdata 2. html+turtle -- where you use <script/> for embedding Turtle. Note, picking winners (overtly or covertly) is always a shortcut to politically induced inertia. It's best to do the complete opposite which has the net effect of demonstrating the innate dexterity of the RDF.
Sure, why not. We can do all of that. Not the challenge.Will you get the ISWC organizers to accept *HTML*? That's what I would love to hear. The rest is really details. We can have 20 different machine readable versions of the document if we want. Lets have 1 that's acceptable to get things rolling!
-Sarven
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
