Re: [whatwg] header for JSON-LD ???

Hypothetically, if search engines were to start picking up JSON-LD from linked files, which link rel type would this group consider most appropriate? Dan On 23 July 2017 at 06:12, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > 2¢: This list tends to disapprove of JSON-LD, so you should

Re: [whatwg] inverse property mechanism for Microdata?

On 17 March 2014 21:15, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Dan Brickley wrote: We discussed this (and the -inv suggestion) at schema.org again, and the consensus there was that we'd like to have the search engines proceed with accepting an experimental/proposed 'inverse

Re: [whatwg] inverse property mechanism for Microdata?

Hi Ian, HTML people, On 31 January 2014 23:45, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Dan Brickley wrote: We'd (schema.org 'we') like to make a public proposal to update Microdata with a syntax for expressing inverse properties/relationships. [...] Here's an example

Re: [whatwg] Supporting more address levels in autocomplete

On 24 Feb 2014 05:17, Charles McCathie Nevile cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote: On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 05:05:06 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Kevin Marks wrote: On 21 Feb 2014 17:03, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: Those names come from vcard - if adding a new one,

[whatwg] inverse property mechanism for Microdata?

Hi folks. I'm relaying this from the schema.org collaboration, probably the main user of HTML's Microdata mechanism. We'd (schema.org 'we') like to make a public proposal to update Microdata with a syntax for expressing inverse properties/relationships. FWIW other notations that schema.org

[whatwg] Microdata feedback: please state that property value ordering is in the data model, and give usage guidelines

Hello, Reading http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#microdata Section '5.2.3 Names: the itemprop attribute' states something important about Microdata's data model, Within an item, the properties are unordered with respect to each other, except for properties

Re: [whatwg] Captions, Subtitles and the Video Element

On 17/7/09 15:04, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote: On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Jeff Walden wrote: (For the few authors who really want to go crazy, they can already overlap HTML onto theirvideo and do whatever crazy stuff they want to do.) By

Re: [whatwg] Fullscreenable attribute.

On 13/7/09 11:06, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Alpha Omega wrote: I think it would be useful to add fullscreenable (or more refined name) attribute to arbitrary element, so users could be able to full-screen DOM subtrees, that document author marked as fullscreenable. Usage: User

Re: [whatwg] Removing the need for separate feeds

On 22/5/09 09:21, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2009, Henri Sivonen wrote: On May 22, 2009, at 09:01, Ian Hickson wrote: USE CASE: Remove the need for feeds to restate the content of HTML pages (i.e. replace Atom with HTML). Did you do some kind of Is this Good for the Web? analysis

Re: [whatwg] Removing the need for separate feeds

On 22/5/09 12:36, Toby Inkster wrote: Eduard Pascual wrote: For manually authored pages and feeds things would be different; but are there really a significant ammount of such cases out there? I can't say I have seen the entire web (who can?), but among what I have seen, I have never

Re: [whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous

On 20/5/09 22:54, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Toby A Inksterm...@tobyinkster.co.uk wrote: And yet, given an example use of the vocabulary, I'm quite certain I can easily find the page I want describing the vocab, even when there are overlaps in prefixes such as

Re: [whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous

On 18/5/09 10:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: On May 15, 2009, at 19:20, Manu Sporny wrote: There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in general. This is a flawed conclusion, based on the assumption that

Re: [whatwg] Annotating structured data that HTML has no semanticsfor

On 15/5/09 14:11, Shelley Powers wrote: Kristof Zelechovski wrote: I do not think anybody in WHATWG hates the CURIE tool; however, the following problems have been put forward: Copy-Paste The CURIE mechanism is considered inconvenient because is not copy-paste-resilient, and the associated

Re: [whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous

On 15/5/09 18:20, Manu Sporny wrote: Kristof Zelechovski wrote: Therefore, link rot is a bigger problem for CURIE prefixes than for links. There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in general. This

Re: [whatwg] Annotating structured data that HTML has no semantics for

On 14/5/09 14:18, Shelley Powers wrote: James Graham wrote: jgra...@opera.com wrote: Quoting Philip Taylor excors+wha...@gmail.com: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails sent in over the past few

Re: [whatwg] Start position of media resources

On 8/4/09 00:29, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: The media fragment WG decided that fragment addressing should be done with # and be able to just deliver the actual fragment. Interesting! Do you have a reference for this? I can't understand how this is possible if these are URI references, unless

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 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 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 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] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa

On 10/1/09 00:37, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ben Adida wrote: Is inherent resistance to spam a condition (even a consideration) for HTML5? We have to make sure that whatever we specify in HTML5 actually is going to be useful for the purpose it is intended for. If a feature

Re: [whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa

On 3/1/09 14:02, Julian Reschke wrote: Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: ... Well, it'll require an N3 parser where previously none was needed. RDFa requires an RDFa parser as well, and in general *any* metadata requires a parser, so this point is moot. The only metadata that doesn't require a parser is

Re: [whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa

On 3/1/09 16:54, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: Also sprach Dan Brickley: My main problem with the natural language processing option is that it feels too close to waiting for Artificial Intelligence. I'd rather add 6 attributes to HTML and get on with life. :-) Another thought re NLP

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Martin McEvoy wrote: Just one small question Why Has HTML5 dropped the rev=[1] attribute? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#absent-attributes We did some studies and found that the attribute was almost never used, and most of the time, when it was

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

Smylers wrote: Martin McEvoy writes: o be precise, the most commonly used value was rev=made, which is equivalent to rel=author and thus was not a convincing use case. !! rel-author doesn't mean the same as rev-made eg: In which cases doesn't it? If A is the author of B then B was made by

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

Smylers wrote: Dan Brickley writes: Smylers wrote: Martin McEvoy writes: !! rel-author doesn't mean the same as rev-made eg: In which cases doesn't it? If A is the author of B then B was made by A, surely? Then B contributed to the creation of A, yes. Perhaps not on their own. But we

Re: [whatwg] Absent rev?

Dan Brickley wrote: Without rev, content creators (in every language) will need to go through this dance, hunting through dictionaries and debating subtleties, to make sure that they've identified a suitable pair of words such that { X word1 Y } is true if and only if { Y word1 X }. Which

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 Features

Kristof Zelechovski wrote: This amounts to saying that URLs take precedence over CURIEs and CURIEs can be enclosed in brackets in case of any ambiguity. This sounds ridiculous given the weight you put on avoiding ambiguities and name clashes. Since the author does not control the URL scheme

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: Again you're confusing HTTP URLs with URIs. Using URIs as identifiers allows lots of identification schemes other than HTTP, in particular ones that are not based on DNS, or that use DNS, but include a timestamp to address the

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Problem Statement

Kristof Zelechovski wrote: Web browsers are (hopefully) designed so that they run in every culture. If you define a custom vocabulary without considering its ability to describe phenomena of other cultures and try to impose it worldwide, you do more harm than good to the representatives of

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Problem Statement

Ben Adida wrote: Greg Houston wrote: I am not sure if Ben was eluding to this in the last paragraph, but to further complicate things SearchMonkey is not actually using RDF, I think you're confusing two different layers. SearchMonkey parses HTML with microformats, and soon HTML+RDFa, and

Re: [whatwg] RDFa Problem Statement

Dan Brickley wrote: Ben Adida wrote: Greg Houston wrote: I am not sure if Ben was eluding to this in the last paragraph, but to further complicate things SearchMonkey is not actually using RDF, I think you're confusing two different layers. SearchMonkey parses HTML with microformats

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: The point was made before that html5 already has extensive extension mechanisms in place that can address the particular

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Ben Adida wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: Why would it scale any less than URIs? That's basically all URIs are. Why would you reinvent URIs in a way that they can't be de-referenced? Is that really a good design, in your opinion? and it's extremely web-unfriendly, since you can't look up a

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

+cc: Paul Miller of Talis, who worked on the AHDS report mentioned below. Henri Sivonen wrote: On Aug 23, 2008, at 02:43, Ben Adida wrote: Why would you reinvent URIs in a way that they can't be de-referenced? To avoid having misleading affordances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance

Re: [whatwg] RDFa

Kristof Zelechovski wrote: It seems to me identification and description of various entities is best achieved with LDAP which is hierarchical by design. Why wasn't LDAP adopted for the purpose, given that it is older, widely used and well understood? Work began on LDAP (a simplification from

Re: [whatwg] Creative Commons Rights Expression Language

would be best expressed as a microformat, as the entire thing can be made just as machine- and human-readable without having to introduce an entire new addition to html. I think someone is a little confused about the important of CC... then Dan Brickley wrote: I encourage you to (re)-read http

Re: [whatwg] Creative Commons Rights Expression Language

+cc: Ben Adida Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Bonner, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hola, I see that the Creative Commons has proposed additions to HTML to support licenses (ccREL):

Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:06:46 +0200, Dan Brickley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions Erm, 'For the Status section to be changed to Accepted, the proposed keyword must have been through the Microformats process, and been approved

Re: [whatwg] Question about the PICS label in HTML5

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:37:30 +0200, Phil Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do we need for HTML 5? Just the link/rel element. A POWDER link will be something like link rel=powder href=powder.xml type=application/xml / If the POWDER WG defines the powder

Re: [whatwg] Administrivia: new member in the oversight committee

Ian Hickson wrote: On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Dan Brickley wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: FYI, Anne van Kesteren was just invited to join the WHATWG membership (as defined by our charter, basically that's the small group of people whom I have to answer to in my role as editor). He was invited due

Re: [whatwg] Administrivia: new member in the oversight committee

Hi Ian, Ian Hickson wrote: FYI, Anne van Kesteren was just invited to join the WHATWG membership (as defined by our charter, basically that's the small group of people whom I have to answer to in my role as editor). He was invited due to his long involvement in the WHATWG. This oversight

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

[snip] How about this permathread gets a @whatwg.org mailing list all of its own? Just a suggestion... dan

Re: [whatwg] sarcasm

Elliotte Harold wrote: It occurs to me that one of the most frequently used nits of pseudo-markup is to indicate sarcasm. For example, sarcasmYeah, George W. Bush has been such a great president./sarcasm Should we perhaps formalize this? Is there any benefit to be achieved by adding an

Re: [whatwg] video, object, Timed Media Elements -- Part I SMIL

Martin Atkins wrote: ddailey wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:03:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote 1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco. Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and 2)

Re: [whatwg] video: togglePause() versus pause()

Alexey Feldgendler wrote: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:09:02 +0100, Magnus Kristiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just played some more with our internal implementation (Opera's) and noticed that our pause() really is like togglePause() in the HTML5 proposal. Looking at the specification I don't

Re: [whatwg] W3C restarts HTML effort

Ian Hickson wrote: The W3C today publicly announced that they are restarting an HTML specification effort. http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease This is great news and a clear validation of the WHATWG effort, which has been leading the maintenance and development of HTML since 2004.

Re: [whatwg] The IMG element, proposing a CAPTION attribute

Elliotte Harold wrote: Jeff Seager wrote: A better way would be to semantically attach the caption or cutline to the image itself, so its display is paired naturally. In this way, the width of the cutline would be dictated (unless overruled in the stylesheet) by the width of the image. I'm

Re: [whatwg] Mathematics in HTML5

* Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-08 00:28+] On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Michel Fortin wrote: I'd like to try something a little simpler. So here is my idea for a math markup. I would be very cautious about introducing an entirely new language to do this (even if it is just an

Re: [whatwg] HTML5 Parsing spec first draft ready

* Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-15 23:02+] On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Dan Brickley wrote: Have you considered defining the parser behaviour in terms of XML concepts? What would that mean? Could you give an example of what that would look like? Expressing things in terms

Re: [whatwg] HTML5 Parsing spec first draft ready

* Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-13 22:07+] So... The first draft of the HTML5 Parsing spec is ready. I plan to start implementing it at some point in the next few months, to see how well it fares. Any plans for a test suite? eg. pairs of input files and normalised output?

Re: [whatwg] HTML5 Parsing spec first draft ready

+cc: Dan Connolly * Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-14 18:41+] On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Dan Brickley wrote: Any plans for a test suite? eg. pairs of input files and normalised output? (if that makes sense...). I'd strongly recommend people put off creating a test suite until

Re: [whatwg] What exactly is contentEditable for?

Olav Junker Kjær wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote: I'm not disputing the fact that there is an unfortunate demand for embedded WYSIWYG editing in web based CMSs, it is the conceputally broken implementation I'm against. I don't consider this demand unfortunate. I consider it an essential part of