Elias,
It's actually quite bad, since it uses some RDFa attributes with different interpretation. In other words, it's incompatible on purpose.
-Ben Elias Torres wrote:
It seems like Hixie finally agreed on virtually all of the principles that RDFa was created upon except maybe he thought ours was a bit on the complex side. I felt a little bit that way, but still it seems like you really don't know who you work for sometimes. C'est la vie. Why can't people just work together, get along, blah blah.. sigh. On a little side technical note, at first I was worried that only Java-package naming style was allowed but it does says URIs are allowed as well. Here are the principles... * Should be possible for different parts of an item's data to be given in different parts of the page, for example two items described in the same paragraph. ("The two lamps are A and B. The first is $20, the second $30. The first is 5W, the second 7W.") * It should be possible to define globally-unique names, but the syntax should be optimised for a set of predefined vocabularies. * Adding this data to a page should be easy. * The syntax for adding this data should encourage the data to remain accurate when the page is changed. * The syntax should be resilient to intentional copy-and-paste authoring: people copying data into the page from a page that already has data should not have to know about any declarations far from the data. * The syntax should be resilient to unintentional copy-and-paste authoring: people copying markup from the page who do not know about these features should not inadvertently mark up their page with inapplicable data. * Any additional markup or data used to allow the machine to understand the actual information shouldn't be redundantly repeated (e.g. on each cell of a table, when setting it on the column is possible). * Parsing rules should be unambiguous. * Should not require changes to HTML5 parsing rules. * Creating a custom vocabulary should be relatively easy. * Distributed vocabulary development should be possible; it should not require coordination through a centralised system. * It should be possible to publish and re-use custom vocabularies. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us> wrote:http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019681.html -Elias
