W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: "start", "first" and "last" in link relations draft, RDFa and (X)HTML

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:45:11 -0600
Message-ID: <4B00CAC7.4010903@aptest.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
My comments inline:

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>    The http-link-header draft says that it is the first to define 
> "first" and "last". However, "last" is already defined in the XHTML 
> Vocabulary document, which sees "last" as the opposite of "start":
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/#last
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/#start
>    The XHTML Vocabulary builds on RDFa in XHTML:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues
> However, when we look at RDFa in XHTML, then it also defines "first" - 
> without there being any corresponding definition of "first" in the 
> Vocabulary document ... That is: "first" is lacking from the 
> Vocabulary document ...
That was an error on my part.  We introduced 'first' late in the rdfa 
process and it did not get pushed into the vocab document.  I have an 
updated copy of the document and have requested it be put in  place.  
That should be done tomorrow.
> RDFa also operates with "start" and "top". I don't understand this 
> discrepancy between the Vocabulary and RDFa-in-XHTML ... There may 
> also be other values that are in RDFa but which are not in the 
> Vocabulary ... The RDFa spec claims to be older than the Vocabulary ...
The vocabulary is meant to be an expandable superset of terms defined in 
RDFa, XHTML Role, and elsewhere.  As I said above, it was my mistake to 
not push 'first' into that document.  It should be updated tomorrow.
> So in a summary:
> 1. The nottingham draft is not correct in saying that it is the first 
> to define "first" and "last".
> 2. Secondly,  in my view, the best thing would be to follow the 
> implementations and RDFa-in-XHTML with regard to he meaning of "start" 
> versus "first". 3. Thus we should separate "start" and "first" - as 
> the nottingham draft does.
> 4. I hope the XHTML Vocabulary document gets updated so that it 
> actually documents what it claims to document, namely the 
> RDFa-in-XHTML syntax specifications.
And other things.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 16 November 2009 03:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC