- markup (52)
- xml (7)
- xslt (21)
- atom (8)
- overlapping markup (2)
- schema (9)
- creole (4)
- xforms (1)
- pipelines (7)
- coding (2)
- dtll (1)
- genealogy (3)
- gtd (1)
- hardware (1)
- legislation (1)
- ontologies (2)
- unicode (1)
- web (24)
- google (3)
- rdf (6)
- rest (3)
- wikis (1)
- work (1)
- xpath (1)
- xquery (1)
- xtech2008 (3)
- life (26)
- children (5)
- equality (6)
- environment (4)
- gadgets (5)
- software (3)
- xlinq (2)
- conferences (7)
- xtech (6)
- blog (7)
- drupal (3)
Re: RDFa, sure, but now?
Thanks to Tom, Got and Michael for the links and the reassurances about use with XHTML 1.1. That answers that drawback.
But what about maturity? Isn’t it a bit premature to base implementations on Editors Drafts of Working Drafts? Or is RDFa basically sound, and the whole W3C standardisation process likely to only last a short time with few changes? (Having been involved in a couple of W3C standards, I’m well aware that languages can be pretty much stable before they reach Recommendation, but equally that parts only get properly worked out at the final stages. And that getting to Recommendation always takes longer than you think.)
Or perhaps I should ask the question this way: what bits of RDFa are stable, and what bits are likely to change?