• From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@g...>
• To: "Micah Dubinko" <Micah.Dubinko@m...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:43:09 +0200

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Micah Dubinko
<Micah.Dubinko@m...> wrote:
> ERDF is a community spec for embedding RDF triples in valid HTML or XHTML.
> That is, no additional elements, attributes, or namespaces need to be
> defined.
>
> http://research.talis.com/2005/erdf/wiki/Main/RdfInHtml

I like it, some comments;

title attribute: I think the consensus is that this is not used too
heavily for any SEO type rankings, though most browsers use em to
generate tool tips. I wonder if anyone has submitted such an example
page to any search engines to see what it does in terms of ranking.

class & id attribute: these are general purpose attributes ... though
many years spent with designers has informed me that they are a pretty
pessimistic and somewhat jealous group. I know in their minds they
think 'I own the class attribute' and if we start using it for our
nefarious semantic purposes then they will push back.

I think something pragmatic can come of this approach but I think it
would be useful to do a 'litmus' test on a group of designers at this
stage.

cheers, Jim Fuller



> With all the activity around RDFa, now an increasingly-implemented W3C
> Candidate Rec, I wonder it if's time to revisit eRDF and perhaps bring it
> into closer alignment?
>
> http://dubinko.info/blog/2008/07/28/erdf-11-proposal-discussion/
>
> I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on this.
>
> Thanks, -m

• References:
  • Is it time for eRDF 1.1?
    • From: Micah Dubinko <Micah.Dubinko@m...>