Comments on: RDFa - Implications for Accessibility http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/ A pragmatic approach to web standards and accessibility Tue, 13 May 2008 13:09:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: vito http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-38986 vito Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:15:13 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-38986 According to you is there any possibility for using RDFa to obtain accessibility for ajax applications? According to you is there any possibility for using RDFa to obtain accessibility for ajax applications?

]]> By: Richard Morton http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-36443 Richard Morton Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:24:30 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-36443 It's interesting, and I need to read up about this before making any strong judgments, however I do worry about adding complexity in this sort of way. Generally, more complexity leads to diverging development (e.g. proprietary implementations) and makes it harder to get standards compliance. I'm not saying that this is not useful or valuable, but in the accessibility testing that I do it never ceases to amaze me that most web developers aren't performing basic validation of their code (or if they are, they aren't taking any notice of the results). It’s interesting, and I need to read up about this before making any strong judgments, however I do worry about adding complexity in this sort of way. Generally, more complexity leads to diverging development (e.g. proprietary implementations) and makes it harder to get standards compliance. I’m not saying that this is not useful or valuable, but in the accessibility testing that I do it never ceases to amaze me that most web developers aren’t performing basic validation of their code (or if they are, they aren’t taking any notice of the results).

]]> By: Matthew Pennell http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18206 Matthew Pennell Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:30:29 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18206 We published an article on RDF a few months ago that provides some background information and simple examples of RDF: <a href="http://www.digital-web.com/articles/rdf_for_the_rest_of_us/" rel="nofollow">RDF For The Rest Of Us</a>. It discusses eRDF rather than RDFa, which may be easier to grasp for web designers in terms of syntax. We published an article on RDF a few months ago that provides some background information and simple examples of RDF: RDF For The Rest Of Us. It discusses eRDF rather than RDFa, which may be easier to grasp for web designers in terms of syntax.

]]> By: Peter Krantz http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18191 Peter Krantz Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:06:28 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18191 @Mark: Thank you for your reply and explanation. @Mark: Thank you for your reply and explanation.

]]> By: Marcus Ahnve http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18190 Marcus Ahnve Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:51:30 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18190 I actually had no clue about RDFa. Finally I fully understand why you're not a fan of microformats. I actually had no clue about RDFa. Finally I fully understand why you’re not a fan of microformats.

]]> By: Mark Birbeck http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18153 Mark Birbeck Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:32:36 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18153 Dennis, No, it's not a type of microformat, although it's a closely related concept. Microformats is all about defining vocabularies, whilst RDFa is about defining processing rules. In one Microformat you might use the abbr element, in another you might use the title attribute, and so on, which means that each vocabulary comes with its own set of processing rules. RDFa on the other hand always uses the same small set of attributes to carry the vocabularies, and only has one set of processing rules--you only need one RDFa parser. Also since each Microformat is unique--with its own processing rules--it makes it very difficult to mix vocabularies. RDFa is generic, so you can add as many languages as you like, even ones that haven't yet been invented. (Obviously you'll need to wait until they are invented...) One final thing; RDFa is based on RDF, so it means that you can also re-use other people's vocabularies. With Microformats each vocabulary has to be be uniquely created. This last point is particularly important for those working in disciplines such as chemistry or medicine, where vocabularies are already defined, and all that is lacking is the ability to put the metadata into HTML documents. There are some other points <a href="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/2006/10/rdfa-and-microformats.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation. Dennis,

No, it’s not a type of microformat, although it’s a closely related concept. Microformats is all about defining vocabularies, whilst RDFa is about defining processing rules. In one Microformat you might use the abbr element, in another you might use the title attribute, and so on, which means that each vocabulary comes with its own set of processing rules.

RDFa on the other hand always uses the same small set of attributes to carry the vocabularies, and only has one set of processing rules–you only need one RDFa parser.

Also since each Microformat is unique–with its own processing rules–it makes it very difficult to mix vocabularies. RDFa is generic, so you can add as many languages as you like, even ones that haven’t yet been invented. (Obviously you’ll need to wait until they are invented…)

One final thing; RDFa is based on RDF, so it means that you can also re-use other people’s vocabularies. With Microformats each vocabulary has to be be uniquely created. This last point is particularly important for those working in disciplines such as chemistry or medicine, where vocabularies are already defined, and all that is lacking is the ability to put the metadata into HTML documents.

There are some other points here.

Regards,

Mark

–
Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

standards. innovation.

]]> By: RDFa » Blog Archive » RDFa, and its implications for accessibility http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18152 RDFa » Blog Archive » RDFa, and its implications for accessibility Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:31:39 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18152 [...] Krantz has some extremely interesting thoughts on the use of RDFa in assistive technologies. It makes thought-provoking reading not just because it raises some interesting ideas about [...] […] Krantz has some extremely interesting thoughts on the use of RDFa in assistive technologies. It makes thought-provoking reading not just because it raises some interesting ideas about […]

]]> By: Dennis http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18142 Dennis Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:30:32 +0000 http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2007/rdfa-and-accessibility/#comment-18142 So is RDFa a type of Microformat? So is RDFa a type of Microformat?

]]>