W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Review of RDFa test case

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:12:52 -0500
Message-Id: <815ba771254f43501354bb6ddb7e36ce@w3.org>
Cc: <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>

On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:35 AM, McBride, Brian wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> I note also that the property in this statement has a URI of
>>> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmltransformation and is affected by the
>>> default namespace in effect in the head of the source document.  I
>>> think the test case accurately reflects the spec, but that
>> still looks
>>> a bit broken to me.
>>
>> Indeed, that is odd. Fabien?
>
> The root cause of the problem here may be that RDF/a treats the value 
> of
> the rel attribute of a link element as a Curie and GRDDL doesn't.  A
> possible solution would be to mod GRDDL so that the rel attribute value
> is also treated as a curie e.g. "grddl:transformation" with the grddl
> namespace prefix defined.

No, let's not require the use of qnames in content in GRDDL.

The HTML 4 spec says link types (i.e. rel attribute values) can be
grounded in URI space using profiles, and that's what we do.

If the RDFa design interacts poorly with GRDDL, it interacts poorly
with lots of other link relationships too (e.g. XFN, DC). I wish they'd
change it, but if they choose not to, I don't see that as a reason
to change GRDDL.

http://gmpg.org/xfn/11
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 05:12:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT