W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Deciding in public (Was: SVGWG SVG-in-HTML proposal)

From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:56:38 -0700
Message-ID: <3b31caf90808011156k6ce7ad51l5490754d7c20262d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

[Regarding trackback's use of RDF-in-comments, contrasting with
pingback's use of link@rel]

>>> Could you clarify what extension points you're talking about? Class?
>>
>> Offhand, @class, @rel, @id, <div>, <span>, <meta>, @data-* all come
>> to mind. I suppose @role counts, though why you'd use @role instead
>> of @class eludes me.
>
> To put in RDF statements?

No, to include a trackback link in an HTML document. All you need is
@rel for this case.

> rel could work for this particular case (it would work better if there
> was a registry mechanism).

There is one, in Section 5.11.3.20 Other link types:

       http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#other0

> div/span: don't see where there's extensibility in them.

Lacking semantics of their own, <div> and <span> are handy to when other
elements' semantics would conflict with whichever semantics you're
adding to things. For instance, prior to the introduction of <article>,
authors could have used <div> (as in <div class="article">) for marking
up articles.

> That being said, it [@data-*] has the same problem as most of the
> other things you mentioned, the lack of a disambiguation mechanism.

So far as I've seen, the lack of a disambiguation mechanism isn't a
problem in practice. <div class="vcard"> means what it obviously means,
regardless of the presence or contents of head@profile.
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 18:57:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:21 GMT