Shelley Powers ha scritto:
The point I'm making is that you set a precedent, and a good one I
think: giving precedence to not invented here. In other words, to
not re-invent new ways of doing something, but to look for established
processes, models, et al already in place, implemented,
Shelley Powers ha scritto:
The point I'm making is that you set a precedent, and a good one I
think: giving precedence to not invented here. In other words, to
not re-invent new ways of doing something, but to look for established
processes, models, et al already in place, implemented,
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
It seems that you'd expect RDFa to be specced out before solving related
problems (so to push their solution). I don't think that's the right path to
follow, instead known issues must be solved before making a decision, so
that the specification can tell
Dan Brickley wrote:
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
Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the
WhatWG working group members
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
The more use cases there are, the better informed the results will be.
The point isn't to provide use cases. The point is to highlight a
serious problem with this working group--there is a mindset of what the
future of
Jim Jewett wrote:
(But existing W3C standard probably isn't strong enough.)
s/probably/certainly/
-Boris
P.S. For anyone who cares, I suggest reading
http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a for my reasons for saying the
above.
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
Take you guys seriously...OK, yeah.
I don't doubt that the work will be challenging, or problematical.
I'm not denying Henri's claim. And I didn't claim to be the one who
would necessarily come up with the solutions, either, but that I
On Jan 18, 2009, at 02:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi
wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote:
Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes
already
existing in HTML5, and adding a few more.
Also, RDFa
On 17/1/09 23:30, L. David Baron wrote:
On Saturday 2009-01-17 22:25 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The story of RDF is very different. Of the top four engines, only Gecko
has RDF functionality. It was implemented at a time when RDF was a young
W3C REC and stuff that were W3C RECs were implemented
On 18/1/09 00:24, Henri Sivonen wrote:
No. However, most of the time, when people publish HTML, they do it to
elicit browser behavior when a user loads the HTML document in a browser.
Most users of the Web barely know what a browser is, let alone HTML.
They're just putting information
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 18/1/09 00:24, Henri Sivonen wrote:
No. However, most of the time, when people publish HTML, they do it to
elicit browser behavior when a user loads the HTML document in a
browser.
Most users of the Web barely know what a browser is, let
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
But back to expectations. I've seen references elsewhere to Ian being
booked through the end of this quarter. I may have misheard, but in any
case, my point is the same: if this is awaiting something from Ian, it
will be prioritized
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of
the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a
comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web post, which caused the
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one
of the WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add a
comment to my Stop Justifying RDF and RDFa web
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
And regardless of the fact that I jumped to conclusions about WhatWG
membership, I do not believe I was inaccurate with the earlier part of
this email. Sam started a new thread in the discussion about the
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
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
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi 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
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
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?
On 18/1/09 21:04, Shelley Powers wrote:
Dan Brickley wrote:
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,
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
My apologies for not responding sooner to this thread. You see, one of the
WhatWG working group members thought it would be fun to add
Am Sonntag, den 18.01.2009, 21:30 + schrieb Eduard Pascual:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/01/xml-sunday shows the commentor
Dan Brickley wrote:
... I guess the fact that @property is supposed to be CURIE-only
isn't a
problem with parsers since this can be understood as a CURIE with
no (or
empty) substitution token.
Actually, most RDFa parsers will break if full URIs are used in RDFa
attributes: in RDFa all
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
The more use cases there are, the better informed the results will be.
The point isn't to provide use cases. The point is to highlight a
serious problem with this working group--there is a mindset of what the
future of HTML will look like, and
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
related to HTML5.
The purpose behind RDFa is to provide a way to embed complex information
into a web document, in such a way that a machine can extract this
information and combine it with other data extracted from other
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related
to HTML5.
Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am far from an apologist for Hixie, (nor
for that matter and I a strong advocate for RDF), but I
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making related
to HTML5.
Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am far from an apologist for Hixie, (nor
for that matter and
Dan Brickley wrote:
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
related
to HTML5.
Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am far from an apologist for Hixie,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
related
to HTML5.
Perhaps. Or
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
So, why accept that we have to use MathML in order to solve the
problems of formatting mathematical formula? Why not start from
scratch, and devise a new approach?
Ian explored (and answered) that here:
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote:
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
On Jan 17, 2009, at 20:33, Dan Brickley wrote:
Good question. I for one expect RDFa to be accessible to Javascript.
http://code.google.com/p/rdfquery/wiki/Introduction - http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/markup/markup.html
is a nice example of code that does something useful in
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
So, why accept that we have to use MathML in order to solve the
problems of formatting mathematical formula? Why not start from
scratch, and devise a new approach?
Ian explored (and answered) that
On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote:
I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG
accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the
beginning.
I'm not sure if the same procedure was also applied to the canvas
object, as well as the SQL
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied,
and we've shown how it is not a disruptive solution to HTML5.
Others may differ, but my read is that the case is a strong one. But
I will
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 20:33, Dan Brickley wrote:
Good question. I for one expect RDFa to be accessible to Javascript.
http://code.google.com/p/rdfquery/wiki/Introduction -
http://rdfquery.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demos/markup/markup.html is
a nice example of code that
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote:
I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG
accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the
beginning.
I'm not sure if the same procedure was also applied to the canvas
object, as
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied,
and we've shown how it is not a disruptive solution to HTML5.
Others may differ, but my read is that the case is a
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
shell...@burningbird.net wrote:
I propose that RDFa is the best solution to the use case Martin supplied,
and we've shown how it is not a
On Saturday 2009-01-17 22:25 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The story of RDF is very different. Of the top four engines, only Gecko
has RDF functionality. It was implemented at a time when RDF was a young
W3C REC and stuff that were W3C RECs were implemented less critically
than nowadays.
On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote:
Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes
already existing in HTML5, and adding a few more.
Also, RDFa uses CURIEs which in turn use the XML namespace mapping
context.
I would assume no differences in the DOM based
On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:43, Shelley Powers wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 21:38, Shelley Powers wrote:
I'm not doubting the effort that went into getting MathML and SVG
accepted. I've followed the effort associated with SVG since the
beginning.
I'm not sure if the same
The assumption is incorrect.
Please compare
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/xmlns-dom.html
and
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/moz/xmlns-dom.xhtml
Same bytes, different media type.
I put together a very crude demonstration of JavaScript access of a
specific RDFa attribute, about. It's
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 22:35, Shelley Powers wrote:
Generally, though, RDFa is based on reusing a set of attributes already
existing in HTML5, and adding a few more.
Also, RDFa uses CURIEs which in turn use the XML namespace
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
But back to expectations. I've seen references elsewhere to Ian being
booked through the end of this quarter. I may have misheard, but in any
case, my point is the same: if this is awaiting something from Ian, it
will be prioritized and dealt with
47 matches
Mail list logo
