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: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:56:29 +0100
Message-Id: <B5BDCEA9-F5E9-43E6-9C8E-B0A63BBEBB3C@w3.org>
Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Jeni, 

just one small remark: the property vs. rel issue is orthogonal. All these terms are recognized by both property and rel.

I think the best way forward is to raise an issue by the RDFa wg

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net



On 10 Nov 2011, at 18:16, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

> 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 17:56:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:56:56 GMT