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?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0116.html
...
I like the GRDDL approach of seeing RDF there by looking at non-RDF
things just right--with the modification that the person who wants
to look just right is the one supplying the transform.
...
I like GRDDL, too, but it has problems with respect to scaling
similar to microformats. Things will get complicated when you want
to combine statements from different vocabularies on the same page.
The completely prefixless microformat naming approach isn't good when
different microformats overlap and common words have been allocated
badly. It works if you can decide that all classes that are on
descendants of a class identifying a format root belong to that format
(i.e. the subtree root is effectively the prefix).
If vocabularies are designed to overlap, instead of having "title" it
would be better to have "hcard-title". Still no need for all the full
URI stuff in HTML. That could live in the GRDDL transform.
...
Browsers don't
need to do anything (except make the attributes available in the
DOM,
which they would probably do anyways.)
I'm getting mixed signals about the extent to which RDFa in
envisioned to be browser-sensitive. Weren't browsers supposed to do
cool stuff with it according to some emails in this thread?
...
Browsers are not "supposed" to do with RDFa anymore than, for
instance, with microformats.
I've seen Mozilla Ubiquity referred to several times in this thread--
presumably with the implication that something like Mozilla Ubiquity
should be RDFa-based. That would be more than just ignoring
attributes. (As far as I can tell, Ubiquity is not RDFa-based.)
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
