[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)
Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk
Fri Aug 6 15:37:26 CEST 2010
I've always been in favour of mandating a small number of formats:
RDF/XML and HTML+RDFa on the verification side (MUST) and at least one
of them on the publication side (MUST).
The only reason I'm against "MUST use RDFa" is to allow for cases where
it's impractical to embed the RDF within the HTML representation, which
can be compensated by serving the RDF via RDF/XML and content-type
HTML+RDFa in one representation may be preferable to HTML and RDF/XML in
distinct representations, but this can lead to quite a bit of tangled
code in the implementation of the template (or whatever produces the
representations), which isn't always desirable.
On 06/08/10 14:02, Seth Russell wrote:
> 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.
> Seth Russell
> Podcasting: tagtalking.net <http://tagtalking.net>
> Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth <http://facebook.com/russell.seth>
> Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell <http://twitter.com/SethRussell>
> Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/ <http://fastblogit.com/seth/>
> Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com <http://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
> <mailto: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
> > 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
> <mailto:foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org>
More information about the foaf-protocols