Re: [docbook] RDFa Lite inside <info>

[Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de>]

Hi,

Am 03.07.21 um 11:17 schrieb Norm Tovey-Walsh:
>> [...] However, for my taste, it creates two distinct sets of
>> metadata: one from DocBook and the other from the vocabulary (in my
>> case, schema.org).
>
> Yes. I considered that. I imagine you could go the other way and make
> everything RDFa or Dublin Core or something. But then youâd have a very
> non-DocBook DocBook document.

Right. Well, I'm just a bit concerned that it would be too difficult to
work with it. You basically need to work with two sets.

On the other side, I assume that mostly it would be a copy-and-paste or
fill-in-the-gaps action.


> My (personal) inclination would still be to use the DocBook-native
> metadata features where possible. But I can see how you might want to
> use RDFa more consistently.

True, I would also first try the DocBook-native metadata.


>> Yes, the information should appear in the HTML source. If I'm not
>> mistaken, RDFa Lite is currently not supported for the XSLT 1.0
>> stylehsheets. This would need a customization layer (which I already
>> have).
>
> Iâm pretty sure theyâre supported by the xslTNG stylesheets.

That's good, unfortunately, we are currently stick to the XSLT 1.0
stylesheets. :-/


> [...]
>> If I read the TDG correctly, "name" is a required attribute, right?
>> Wouldn't that make this attribute somehow unnecessary in the light of
>> RDFa Lite?
>
> Thatâs what I meant by âcould probably be relaxed a little bit.â

:-)


>> Not sure if the content model should be adapted. Something like a
>> "HTML-like" <meta> element with name and a "RDFa Lite"-like <meta> with
>> all other RDFa attributes. Would that make sense?
>
> The RDFa attributes are already global, I think all that needs to be
> changed is that the ânameâ attribute should be optional.

Yes, that makes sense.


Thanks!


--
GruÃ/Regards
  Thomas Schraitle