[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jan 9 11:41:10 PST 2009
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> *If* we want to support RDFa, why not add the attributes the way they are
>> already named???
> Because the issue is that we don't yet know if we want to support
> RDFa. That's the whole point of this thread. Nobody's given a useful
> problem statement yet, so we can't evaluate whether there's a problem
> we need to solve, or how we should solve it.
For the record: I disagree with that. I have the impression that no
matter how many problems are presented, the answer is going to be: "not
that stone -- fetch me another stone".
> Alex's suggestion, while officially against spec, has the benefit of
> allowing RDFa supporters to sort out their use cases through
> experience. That's the back door into the spec, after all; you don't
If something that is against the spec is acceptable, then it's *much*
easier to just use the already defined attributes. Better breaking the
spec by using new attributes then abusing existing ones.
More information about the whatwg