Julian Reschke wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
Neither RDFa, nor Microdata are extension mechanisms that allow
adding "independently developed vocabularies" to HTML.
Could you describe the criteria by which one can recognise a mechanism
for allowing the addition of independently developed vocabularies? I'm
baffled as to what the point of RDFa and Microdata would be if not
exactly that.
It would be helpful to demonstrate *how* Ruby or ITS can be added using
RDFa or Microdata. (examples would be sufficient)
Your question doesn't make sense. Neither Ruby nor ITS are vocabularies
designed for RDFa or Microdata, and I'm sure you are well aware of that.
No-one has claimed that those specific vocabularies could be added
using RDFa or Microdata, so you seem to be making a strawman argument.
You also seem to be avoiding the question that Hixie actually asked.
Do you consider the following to be "independently developed
vocabularies", as referred to by the charter or not? If not, why not?
What is the criteria you are using to determining what is or is not an
independent vocabulary?
* Microdata Vocabularies for vCard, vEvent and Licensing, as described
in the Microdata draft, and other Microformats that may be mapped to
Microdata by the Microformats community
http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#mdvocabs
* The Creative Commons vocabulary for RDFa?
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa
* Dublin Core, FOAF, etc.
Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as they
have been designed for doing so.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
