[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jan 2 09:55:55 PST 2009
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Solutions for this already exist; embedded N3 in a <script> tag, just
> to name something that Ian already mentioned, allows you to mash RDF
> data into a page in a machine-extractable way, and brings in any of
> the specific ancillary benefits of RDF.
Well, it'll require an N3 parser where previously none was needed. Also,
it separates the metadata from the text, a situation most people want to
This may work, but as far as I can tell, the use of <script> for "data
blocks" is an afterthought -- for instance, it's described in a section
about, well, Scripting.
So, is anybody using this successfully in practice?
> Not quite correct. Again, the problem of embedded shareable data in a
> web page has been solved multiple times. The specific problem of
> sharing *RDF* data (due to needing/wanting the specific benefits RDF
> can offer) has also been solved. What are the precise problems that
> require *RDFa* as a solution?
Could you elaborate a bit on these solutions?
My understanding was that RDFa has been produced in order to address
problems with other approaches, such as using <meta> elements, eRDF, or
If there is a *successful* alternative to RDFa that does not require new
attributes, please let us know :-).
> Well, there are many things that would offer more advantages than
> disadvantages by themselves. We can't possibly include all of them in
> the spec; you can think about this as including a hidden large
> disadvantage of 'will grow the size of the spec and the amount of work
> implementors have to do'. Thus the advantages must generally be
> significantly larger than the disadvantages; this is why the best
> argument for including something in the spec is often "there are
> already widespread hacks to accomplish this". <video>, for example,
> was included based on pretty much precisely that argument.
Reminder: RDFa is one of the things the (W3C) Working Group's Charter
mentions as candidate for inclusion (either by a generic extensibility
mechanism, or otherwise by extending the language):
"The HTML WG is encouraged to provide a mechanism to permit
independently developed vocabularies such as Internationalization Tag
Set (ITS), Ruby, and RDFa to be mixed into HTML documents."
Best regards, Julian
More information about the whatwg