[foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)
me at farewellutopia.com
Wed Jul 14 11:17:59 CEST 2010
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Harbulot
<Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I think we can put rdf/xml and rdfa in right now, but there may be a
>> workding which would allow for more flexibility. Perhaps even a
>> relation to GRDDL somehow.
> Wouldn't "In addition, either parties may support any other RDF format via
> HTTP content-type negotiation." provide all the flexibility we'd need
> (including GRDDL)?
> Should we just say "In addition, either parties may support any other
> format." instead?
Other formats are always possible, the question is what are verifying
agents required to understand, here I think that GRDDL would be a
requirement demanding too much of implementors (xslt is far from
A thing to add to spec however I think is, that the accept-header when
dereferencing the WebId/PPD must specify a higher priority for rdf/xml
than for (x)html. Otherwise we are de-facto requiring rdfa even when
an rdf representation is available.
More information about the foaf-protocols