Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So, if I'm pushing for RDFa, it's not because I want to win. It's
because I have things I want to do now, and I would like to make sure
have a reasonable chance of working a couple of years in the future.
And yeah
Dan Brickley wrote:
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
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Classes in com.sun.* are reserved for Java implementation details and should
not be used by the general public. CURIE URL are intended for general use.
So, I can say Well, it is not the same, because it is not.
Cheers,
Chris
But we're not dealing with Java
Philip Taylor wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The most important point to take from all of this, though, is that link rot
within the RDF world is an extremely rare and unlikely occurrence.
That seems to be untrue in practice - see
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 months was the following:
USE CASE:
Dan Brickley wrote:
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
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So much concern about generating RDF, makes one wonder why we didn't
just implement RDFa...
If it's possible to produce RDF triples from microdata, and if RDF
triples of interest can be expressed with microdata
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So much concern about generating RDF, makes one wonder why we
didn't just implement RDFa...
If it's possible to produce RDF triples
Philip Taylor wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
(at least for now: many RDFa-aware agents vs. zero HTML5's
microdata -aware agents)
HTML5 microdata parsers seem pretty trivial to write -
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Peter Mika wrote:
Just a quick comment on:
it uses prefixes, which most authors simply do not understand, and
which many implementors end up getting wrong (e.g. SearchMonkey
hard-coded certain prefixes in its first implementation, Google's
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
I
would say if your fellow Google developers could understand how this all
works, there is hope for others.
if
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009May/0064.html
Since a new section detailing HTML5's handling of custom microdata has
been added to the HTML5 spec
(tracked here http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=3073to=3074
and displayed here http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#microdata
and announced
Sorry for the double emails today.
I will continue with revisiting the use cases for the microdata section.
One additional component I'll add to the use cases is applying my
interpretation of how RDFa might handle the use case, as compared to
how it could be handled with Ian's new HTML5
It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Ian, I would like to see the original request that went into this
particular use case. In particular, I'd like to know who originated it,
so that we can ensure
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
It's difficult to tell where one should comment on the so-called
microdata use cases. I'm forced to send to multiple mailing lists.
Please don't cross-post to the WHATWG list and other lists -- you may pick
either one, I
Per Ian Hickson's request, first of my notes on the current HTML 5 draft
Section 1.6.3, where you compare HTML5 with XHTML2 and XForms, you write
However, XHTML2 and XForms lack features to express the semantics of
many of the non-document types of content often seen on the Web. For
instance,
More general comments on the HTML5 draft:
In section three, you mix structure and semantics, but the two are not
necessarily compatible.
For instance, we see an introduction to the Document, and then
immediately proceed into a description of Documents in the DOM. Frankly,
I don't see how a
Review of HTML5 document:
Here's a good example of a potential point of confusion for readers of
the spec when it comes to serialization:
In section 4.5.8 you introduce the ul element, and then demonstrate it
with a several child li elements, each of which is shown with an HTML
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, and there will
never be either a workaround
Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the
WhatWG working group members
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
The more use cases there are, the better informed the results will be.
The point isn't to provide use cases. The point is to highlight a
serious problem with this working group--there is a mindset of what the
future
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
But back to expectations. I've seen references elsewhere to Ian being
booked through the end of this quarter. I may have misheard, but in any
case, my point is the same: if this is awaiting something from Ian, it
will be prioritized
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one
of the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a
comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
related to HTML5.
The purpose behind RDFa is to provide a way to embed complex information
into a web document, in such a way that a machine can extract this
information and combine it with other data extracted from other
Dan Brickley wrote:
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
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
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
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
So, why accept that we have to use MathML in order to solve the
problems of formatting mathematical formula? Why not start from
scratch, and devise a new approach?
Ian explored (and answered
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 20:33, Dan Brickley wrote:
Good question. I for one expect RDFa to be accessible to Javascript.
http://code.google.com/p/rdfquery/wiki/Introduction -
http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/markup/markup.html is
a nice example of code that
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote:
I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG
accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the
beginning.
I'm not sure if the same procedure was also applied to the canvas
object
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied,
and we've shown how it is not a disruptive solution to HTML5.
Others may differ, but my read is that the case
The assumption is incorrect.
Please compare
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/xmlns-dom.html
and
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/xmlns-dom.xhtml
Same bytes, different media type.
I put together a very crude demonstration of JavaScript access of a
specific RDFa attribute, about. It's
31 matches
Mail list logo
