3 Replies to “eRDF 1.1 Proposal Discussion”

  1. As the developer of an eRDF parser, I have one major problem with eRDF which is not addressed by this proposed update — the hijacking of the “id” attribute. While authoring eRDF from scratch, eRDF’s use of @id makes it awkward to add eRDF to existing pages. If your blog contains a DIV element with id=”sidebar” say, you cannot use eRDF within that sidebar to mark up information about the page as a whole: all the eRDF within the sidebar will be assumed to apply to the sidebar only!

    RDFa doesn’t have that problem. Yes, the RDFa spec is only defined in terms of XHTML, but in practice virtually all RDFa parsers support HTML as well. You may still have problems with validation, but using a custom DOCTYPE such as the one used here — http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/html4plus-example — solves most of them (except xmlns attributes).

    I think an effort to get RDFa working in HTML is more worthy than one to update eRDF.

Comments are closed.

© All Right Reserved
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Shree Clean by Canyon Themes.