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 exa
RDFa should sink or swim on its own merits, and if RDFa requires
drastic changes to HTML, it is probably broken. Let the compelling
benefits of RDFa pave the way to implementations, and then standardize
based on experience with those.
RDFa should not be blessed by HTML, and the HTML spec should ad
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, vet
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, vet
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.
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 HTM
Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
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
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
> Now wait a second, you're changing the parameters of the requirements.
> Before, the criteria was based on the DOM. Now you're saying that the
> browsers actually have to do with something with it.
[Put "almost" in front of most words in the following.]
The consistent DOM criteria is necessary
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
w
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 li
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 CU
Am Sonntag, den 18.01.2009, 21:30 + schrieb Eduard Pascual:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
> > wrote:
> > http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/01/xml-sunday shows the commentor (who by the
> > way seems to be on y
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
> 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 Justifyin
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, and
On Jan 18, 2009, at 21:45, Dan Brickley wrote:
If people can control their urge to use namespace abbreviations, and
stick to URIs directly, would this make your DOM-oriented concerns
go away?
Yes, it would make my DOM Consistency concern go away if the urge were
thus controlled for both H
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
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 in
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM, 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 s
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 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 Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:43:12 +0100, Shelley Powers
wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers
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 em
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers
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
issue
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:15:34 +0100, Shelley Powers
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 issues
of namespace and how
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
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
pag
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:22:40 +0100, Shelley Powers
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
page to break. I am using
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, 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
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 online;
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 Jan 18, 2009, at 02:02, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen
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 whic
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 wit
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Henri Sivonen 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 mapping
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 temporary
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 pr
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
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 Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Shelley Powers
wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
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 c
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 we
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 doe
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Shelley Powers
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 caution you that a litt
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 query
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 her
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
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
wrote:
The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
related
to HTML5.
Perhaps. Or perhaps
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:
>
> http://
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The debate about RDFa highlights a disconnect in the decision making
>>> related
>>> to HTML5.
>>
>> Perhaps. Or perhaps not. I am f
Dan Brickley wrote:
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
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
On 17/1/09 19:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
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 R
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Shelley Powers
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 offer the
following ques
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 web
52 matches
Mail list logo
