Henri Sivonen wrote:
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
Thanks.
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).
Yes. But in that case the format is fragile under copy&paste, just as
prefix-based approaches.
...
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.)
Ubiquity is a plugin.
So again, nobody is asking the UA vendors *right now* to do something
with it -- just like nobody is asking for native Microformats support.
BR, Julian
