W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Link relations in RDFa (Was: Re: Guidance on publishing in multiple formats)

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:16:15 +0000
Message-Id: <BBD0721B-1A82-4112-B0FA-D24E873D2C7D@jenitennison.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Ivan, all,

It seems to me that the mismatches between RDFa and HTML5 handling of link relations really needs to be raised as a bug on HTML+RDFa 1.1. The set of registered link relations at

  http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

(which is pointed to by [1]) is bound to grow over time, leading to pages that contain unprefixed properties within @rel being interpreted incorrectly by clients that use the HTML5 or microformats semantics.

I guess a possible workaround would be for HTML+RDFa 1.1 to only pay attention to link relations which look like CURIEs (as they are explicitly excluded from being permissible link relations in HTML5; HTML+RDFa 1.1 also needs to explicitly permit CURIE values). Or more radically for HTML+RDFa 1.1 processors to ignore the @rel attribute altogether, which could be possible if the @property attribute takes on the additional semantics that the RDFWAWG have been talking about.

Does anyone have any opinion about whether these issues need to be raised as bugs? Any volunteers to help with the summary/analysis/examples that would help to explain the issues?

Thanks,

Jeni

[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/links.html#other-link-types
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:16:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:16:42 GMT