[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)

Bruno Harbulot Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk
Fri Aug 6 14:54:31 CEST 2010



On 06/08/10 03:41, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 12:23 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> yes, we could easily accomplish everything needed with *only* RDFa.
>>
>> I for one would be happy to go balls out and specify 'MUST use RDFa'
>> only, would anybody here who has a WebID or a foaf profile have any good
>> reason not to do this?
>
> +1

-1, as we should leave the option to using content-negotiation for 
returning RDF (*instead* of HTML) rather than RDF within HTML.

As I was saying in: 
<http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-August/003075.html>

> Mandating or recommending content-type negotiation could make things
> more difficult for the publisher side.
> Mandating the HTML returned to have some RDFa is also a bad thing, I
> think. The verification agent could very well request
> application/rdf+xml first and then text/html in order or preference.
> Then, a server supporting content-type negotiation could return RDF/XML
> for that and some plain HTML to a browser.

RDFa can be a bit hard to implement, depending on the template 
mechanisms on the server side. It shouldn't be up to the spec to mandate 
that RDF is within the HTML or alongside it (with a different content-type).

In addition, while I support the fact there SHOULD be an HTML 
representation, this is actually not necessary for the protocol to 
function, whereas narrowing down the RDF formats is.



Best wishes,

Bruno.


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list