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 or compromise?
Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML
side
of RDFa not to use attribute whose qualified name has a colon in
them to
achieve DOM Consistency by changing RDFa instead of changing parsing?
I don't believe the RDFa TF are in a position to singlehandedly
rescind a W3C Recommendation, ie.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/.
What they presumably could do is propose new work items within W3C,
which I'd guess would be more likely to be accepted if it had the
active enthusiasm of the core HTML5 team. Am cc:'ing TimBL here who
might have something more to add.
Do you have an alternative design in mind, for expressing the
namespace mappings?
The simplest thing is not to have mappings but to put the corresponding
absolute URI wherever RDFa uses a CURIE.
So this would be a kind of "interoperability profile" of RDFa, where
certain features approved of by REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 wouldn't be
used in some hypothetical HTML5 RDFa.
If people can control their urge to use namespace abbreviations, and
stick to URIs directly, would this make your DOM-oriented concerns go
away?
Took five minutes to make this change in my template. Ran through
validator.nu. Results:
Doesn't like the content-type. Didn't like profile on head. Having to
remove the profile attribute in my head element limits usability, but
I'm not going to throw myself on the sword for this one.
Doesn't like property, doesn't like about. These are the RDFa attributes
I'm using. The RDF extractor doesn't care that I used the URIs directly.
Didn't seem to mind SVG, but a value of "none" is a valid value for
preserveAspectRatio.
Shelley
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
