RDFa in ReSpec

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RDFa in ReSpec

Robin Berjon-2
Hi all,

I see that some here have been busy adding support for RDFa in ReSpec (both versions!). That's really cool.

Would there be any issue with turning it on by default (naturally keeping the option to turn it off)? If not, I'll proceed with the change.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Shane McCarron
  No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C
publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also
added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even
published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).

On 8/17/2010 8:43 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I see that some here have been busy adding support for RDFa in ReSpec (both versions!). That's really cool.
>
> Would there be any issue with turning it on by default (naturally keeping the option to turn it off)? If not, I'll proceed with the change.
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Robin Berjon-2
On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).

Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML.

Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too hackish though.

One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I suspect that might take some time :)

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Shane McCarron
  Actually, the validator DOES accept the HTML+RDFa version.  Its just
pubrules that does not.

I will think about whether there is way to have a mode that means 'add
RDFa at the end'.  But frankly, I think that would be pretty tricky.

On 8/17/2010 9:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).
> Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML.
>
> Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too hackish though.
>
> One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I suspect that might take some time :)
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Ian Jacobs-2

On 17 Aug 2010, at 10:50 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:

> Actually, the validator DOES accept the HTML+RDFa version.  Its just  
> pubrules that does not.

Shane,

Could you tell me what text in pubrules would need changing and to  
what? Thanks for the help,

  _ Ian

>
> I will think about whether there is way to have a mode that means  
> 'add RDFa at the end'.  But frankly, I think that would be pretty  
> tricky.
>
> On 8/17/2010 9:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C  
>>> publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I  
>>> also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We  
>>> even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML
>>> +RDFa 1.1).
>> Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time  
>> whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really  
>> don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use  
>> HTML.
>>
>> Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a  
>> post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving  
>> to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too  
>> hackish though.
>>
>> One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though  
>> I suspect that might take some time :)
>>
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>

--
Ian Jacobs ([hidden email])    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Shane McCarron
  Sure.  pubrules only permits certain markup languages to be used in
W3C rec track documents.  These include XHTML 1.0, HTML 4.01, and
XHTML+RDFa 1.0.  There is no W3C recommendation that defines HTML+RDFa
currently.  There is a rec-track document that is not yet in last call
that defines such a language (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/) but it
is based upon RDFa Core 1.1, which has also not yet entered last call.  
Consequently, such a language is probably too immature for use in a rec
track document.

If you REALLY wanted to permit the use of HTML4+RDFa 1.0 in spite of it
not being defined in a W3C recommendation, we DO have a DTD for this,
and ReSpec.js has been modified to generate documents that validate
against that DTD.  I just assumed this would be unlikely.

On 8/17/2010 9:55 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:

>
> On 17 Aug 2010, at 10:50 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>> Actually, the validator DOES accept the HTML+RDFa version.  Its just
>> pubrules that does not.
>
> Shane,
>
> Could you tell me what text in pubrules would need changing and to
> what? Thanks for the help,
>
>  _ Ian
>
>>
>> I will think about whether there is way to have a mode that means
>> 'add RDFa at the end'.  But frankly, I think that would be pretty
>> tricky.
>>
>> On 8/17/2010 9:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C
>>>> publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I
>>>> also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We
>>>> even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and
>>>> XHTML+RDFa 1.1).
>>> Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time
>>> whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really
>>> don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML.
>>>
>>> Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a
>>> post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving
>>> to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too
>>> hackish though.
>>>
>>> One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I
>>> suspect that might take some time :)
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs ([hidden email])    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Gregg Kellogg
In reply to this post by Shane McCarron
Doing this in the context of ReSpec2 should be even easier, but the explicit modular nature makes it difficult. I've been considering folding the module inclusions into a single driver file, as it's easy to loose some step you depend on.

Gregg

On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:

>  No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C
> publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also
> added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even
> published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).
>
> On 8/17/2010 8:43 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I see that some here have been busy adding support for RDFa in ReSpec (both versions!). That's really cool.
>>
>> Would there be any issue with turning it on by default (naturally keeping the option to turn it off)? If not, I'll proceed with the change.
>>
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Gregg Kellogg
In reply to this post by Robin Berjon-2
In ReSpec2, HTML generation should probably also depend on if unhtml5 is used. It's perfectly reasonable (outside of pubrules, I suppose) to not do the unhtml5 step, in which case there is no XHTML+RDFa profile anyway. In the context of generating HTML4, then it's probably easier to invoke the RDFa steps when the file's being saved, but that makes it more difficult to debug when developing. It's probably better to strip the RDFa markup when saving HTML or XHTML.

Gregg

On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).
>
> Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML.
>
> Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too hackish though.
>
> One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I suspect that might take some time :)
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RDFa in ReSpec

Shane McCarron
  (neglected to copy the group)

Well... actually, there is a profile.  This spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/  defines such a profile for HTML5.  
It should proceed in lockstep with the development of the HTML5
recommendation.

On 8/17/2010 11:29 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> In ReSpec2, HTML generation should probably also depend on if unhtml5 is used. It's perfectly reasonable (outside of pubrules, I suppose) to not do the unhtml5 step, in which case there is no XHTML+RDFa profile anyway. In the context of generating HTML4, then it's probably easier to invoke the RDFa steps when the file's being saved, but that makes it more difficult to debug when developing. It's probably better to strip the RDFa markup when saving HTML or XHTML.
>
> Gregg
>
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>> On Aug 17, 2010, at 16:26 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> No objection from me.  Note that in order to be valid for W3C publication use you would need to make the default XHTML+RDFa.  I also added XHTML generation, and it seems to work very well.  We even published a spec the other day using it (RDFa Core and XHTML+RDFa 1.1).
>> Ah, that's problematic because we don't know at DOM generation time whether the user will want to save as HTML or XHTML, and I really don't want to suddenly break things for people who prefer to use HTML.
>>
>> Do you think that your implementation could be made to work as a post-processor so that saving to HTML would do nothing, but saving to XHTML would include the RDFa (unless disabled)? It might be too hackish though.
>>
>> One alternative could be to get the validator to accept it, though I suspect that might take some time :)
>>
>> --
>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]