On 11/1/09 02:51, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
eRDF might be a working compromise, because it doesn't need any changes
to the spec
It's not possible to author conforming HTML5 that functions as eRDF
since eRDF requires a 'profile' attribute, but HTML5 has removed the
attribute.
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
The concern is about every kind of metadata with respect to their
possible uses; but, while it's been stated that Microforamts (for
instance) don't require any purticular support by UAs (thus they're
backward compatible), RDFa would be a completely new feature,
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis ha scritto:
On 11/1/09 02:51, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
eRDF might be a working compromise, because it doesn't need any changes
to the spec
It's not possible to author conforming HTML5 that functions as eRDF
since eRDF requires a 'profile' attribute, but HTML5
On 11/1/09 16:52, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Well, that's a chance, of course, but that's *not* RDFa as specified by
W3C; for instance, @property is specified as accepting _only_ CURIEs
Good point; I hadn't spotted that.
It's the same with every possible existing custom (non-standard)
Toby A Inkster wrote:
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
The concern is about every kind of metadata with respect to their
possible uses; but, while it's been stated that Microforamts (for
instance) don't require any purticular support by UAs (thus they're
backward compatible), RDFa would be a
I just noticed that section 2.7.1 of HTML5 says:
Extensions must not be used for determining resource types
for resources fetched over HTTP.
While I understand the reasons for this, there are certainly cases where
this will break sites (basically those using HTTP 0.9, or later HTTP
Toby A Inkster ha scritto:
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
The concern is about every kind of metadata with respect to their
possible uses; but, while it's been stated that Microforamts (for
instance) don't require any purticular support by UAs (thus they're
backward compatible), RDFa would
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Toby A Inkster wrote:
RDFa doesn't require any special support beyond the special support that
is required for Microformats. i.e. nothing. User agents are free to
ignore the RDFa attributes. In that sense, RDFa already works in
pretty much every existing browser, even
Ian Hickson wrote:
The question we should be discussing is not should it work? (because
it already does), but rather, should it validate?
No, the question is what problem are we solving?. Talking about RDFa,
RDF, eRDF, Microformats, and so forth doesn't answer this question.
The question
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Martin Atkins wrote:
The disconnect you're facing is that the proposers of RDFa consider the
ability to encode RDF triples to be a goal, while you consider RDF
triples to be a solution to a (as-yet-undetermined) higher-level
problem. They take RDF as a given, while
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:54:08 +1100, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
alex.baldacch...@email.it wrote:
I admit I'm not very expert in RDF use, thus I have a few questions.
Specifically, maybe I can guess the advantages when using the same
(carefully modelled, and well-known) vocabulary/ies; but
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:41:10 +1100, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
*If* we want to support RDFa, why not add the attributes the way they
are
already named???
Because the issue is that we don't yet know if we want to support
RDFa. That's the whole point
Ian Hickson wrote:
They have already solved some problems with RDF and wish only to adapt
this generalized solution to work in HTML, while you wish to re-solve
all of these problems from the ground up.
I don't necessarily wish to resolve the problems -- if they have existing
good
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Martin Atkins wrote:
One problem this can solve is that an agent can, given a URL that
represents a person, extract some basic profile information such as the
person's name along with references to other people that person knows.
This can further be applied to allow a
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
I just noticed that section 2.7.1 of HTML5 says:
Extensions must not be used for determining resource types
for resources fetched over HTTP.
Extensions are bad news for content sniffing because they can often be
chosen
15 matches
Mail list logo
