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
