[whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector

Dan Brickley danbri at danbri.org
Sun Jan 18 11:45:49 PST 2009

On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will
>>>> never be either a workaround or compromise?
>>> Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML side
>>> of RDFa not to use attribute whose qualified name has a colon in them to
>>> achieve DOM Consistency by changing RDFa instead of changing parsing?
>> I don't believe the RDFa TF are in a position to singlehandedly
>> rescind a W3C Recommendation, ie.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/.
>> What they presumably could do is propose new work items within W3C,
>> which I'd guess would be more likely to be accepted if it had the
>> active enthusiasm of the core HTML5 team. Am cc:'ing TimBL here who
>> might have something more to add.
>> Do you have an alternative design in mind, for expressing the
>> namespace mappings?
> The simplest thing is not to have mappings but to put the corresponding
> absolute URI wherever RDFa uses a CURIE.

So this would be a kind of "interoperability profile" of RDFa, where 
certain features approved of by REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 wouldn't be 
used in some hypothetical HTML5 RDFa.

If people can control their urge to use namespace abbreviations, and 
stick to URIs directly, would this make your DOM-oriented concerns go away?




More information about the whatwg mailing list