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 of this thread. Nobody's given a useful
problem statement yet, so we can't evaluate whether there's a problem
we need to solve, or how we should solve it.
For the record: I disagree with that. I have the impression that no
matter how many problems are presented, the answer is going to be: "not
that stone -- fetch me another stone".
There does appear to be some of this. I have no idea if that is just an
impression or the truth. Hence my continued following of the thread.
Alex's suggestion, while officially against spec, has the benefit of
allowing RDFa supporters to sort out their use cases through
experience. That's the back door into the spec, after all; you don't
If something that is against the spec is acceptable, then it's *much*
easier to just use the already defined attributes. Better breaking the
spec by using new attributes then abusing existing ones.
Indeed. I the data-* attributes had some reserved values, then one might
expect people to invest in them on the scale that they have typically made
RDF investments. But then there would be no need to change the attribute
names at all (nor, for that matter, to put much effort into other
attribute names following the design pattern. It just becomes another
approach to namespaces with another centralisation process required). The
question is what would convince the editors of the spec that there is in
fact a use case for RDF in HTML which is what has led to the request to
include RDFa (a form of RDF carefully designed to fit into HTML).
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
