[whatwg] RDFa statement consistency

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Aug 29 16:24:34 PDT 2008

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


>> 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

More information about the whatwg mailing list