[whatwg] Annotating structured data that HTML has no semantics for

Wed May 13 08:04:54 PDT 2009

Toby Inkster on Wed May 13 02:19:17 PDT 2009:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
> > Hear hear.  Lets call it "Cascading RDF Sheets".
>
> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec
>
> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/reactions
>
> I have actually implemented it. It works.

Oh! Thanks for sharing.

> RDFa is better though.

What does 'better' mean in this context? Why and how? Because it is 
easier to process? But EASE seems more compatible with microformats, and 
is "better" in that sense.

I read all the reactions you pointed to. Some made the claim that EASE 
would move semantics out of the HTML file, and that microformats was 
better as it keeps the semantics inside the file. But I of course agree 
with you that EASE just underline/outline the semantics already in the file.

The thing that probably is most different from (most) microformats (and 
RDFa?) is that EASE can apply semantics even to bare naked elements 
without any @class, @id or other attributes. However, EASE do not 
/require/ one to use it like that. One may choose to create an entirely 
class based EASE document.

It would even be possible to use EASE together with Ian's microdata, 
don't you think?

 From the EASE draft:
> All properties in RDF-EASE begin with the string -rdf-, as per 
> §4.1.2.1 Vendor-specific extensions in [CSS21]. This allows RDF-EASE 
> and CSS to be safely mixed in one file, [...]
I wonder why you think it is so important to be able to mix CSS and 
EASE. It seems better to separate the two completely.

 From the EASE draft:
> The algorithm assumes that the document is held in a DOM-compatible 
> representation,
Side kick: <meta> is proposed as part of microdata. But both Firefox and 
Safari will in the DOM render <meta> as part of <head>, regardless.
-- 
leif halvard silli