[whatwg] Trying to work out the problems solved by RDFa

Calogero Alex Baldacchino alex.baldacchino at email.it
Sat Jan 10 09:54:23 PST 2009

Toby A Inkster ha scritto:
> It should be noted in this case that RDFa also allows natural language 
> parsers to be made more useful. By looking at the RDFa which marks up 
> the author's name and website, they may be able to determine that the 
> comment has been written by someone other than the page's main author, 
> and thus not afford it the same level of trust granted to the rest of 
> the page. So the natural language processing can benefit from RDFa.

That's true only if one can assume metadata are trustful, but they are 
only if they can be under a strict control, that is on a small-scale 
application. On a wider scale, one needs to make the opposite 
assumption, because it would or might be more common to find fake 
metadata with "honest" content (the prose of an advertisement does not 
lie, but related metadata can tell it's a different think to cheat a 
metadata-based UA), either because a site author can be a party to the 
spammer, or because authors can mess up metadata (yeah, they can mess up 
html code too, but that's either not a problem, because a UA can present 
the content as well, or it is but it might damage the author more than 
it may harm the user). If metadata are created/used for external 
consumption, they can be just ignored by authors, who instead may just 
copy&paste code or reuse templates in different contexts, without being 
able to set proper metadata for the new content. Thus UAs can't rely on 
metadata /in general/, while they might /in some/, small-scale scenarios.

WBR, Alex
 Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f
 Con Danone Activia, puoi vincere cellulari Nokia e Macbook Air. Scopri come
 Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8547&d=10-1

More information about the whatwg mailing list