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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:09:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4EBC2F5C.6040404@gmx.de>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
CC: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 2011-11-09 22:59, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2011, at 09:36, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 2. As for the default context of HTML: indeed, there is the issue of the default prefixes. But there is another default set, namely the set of 'link relations' that are recognized as valid in a @rel or @property[1]. The decision of the RDFa WG is to rely on the IANA set of link relations in this respect[2]. It is worth referring to that, too (note that those terms are used only if there is no @vocab, meaning that in probably 99%, if not 100%, of the schema.org cases they would have no effect).
>
>
> Thanks, Ivan, for pointing out the discrepancies in the use of link relations. We need to work through the implications of this...
>
> If someone uses an unprefixed term within a @rel attribute and there is no in-scope @vocab then an RDFa processor will interpret the relationships based on the IANA link relations whereas an HTML processor will interpret them based on the HTML link relations. Has the RDFWAWG done an analysis on whether the semantics are comparable? (It seems to me that rel="alternate stylesheet" has particular issues.) If it hasn't, it would be a useful thing for this group to do.

FYI: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/174>

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 20:09:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 November 2011 20:09:44 GMT