[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
russell.seth at gmail.com
Fri Aug 6 15:02:33 CEST 2010
There is another reason why we should be a more heavey handed with
specifying formats ... and that is *reliability*. If we leave the formats
so open and up to developers to coose, then we are going to get everything
all over the board ... pretty much what is happening right now. So the
chances any one person has of seeing it work will be decreased. When it
doesn't work for people, they will just go do something else.
Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Harbulot <
Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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:
> > 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
> 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,
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the foaf-protocols