[whatwg] RDFa statement consistency
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Aug 29 01:11:37 PDT 2008
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
> Namespaces, but then at least notable parts of the RDF community figured
> that they didn't like RDF/XML all that much and started doing N-triples,
> N3 and Turtle. The damage was already done, and now the XML community is
> stuck with Namespaces in XML.
Parts of the community are totally happy with them.
> 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.
>> 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,
More information about the whatwg