W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Review comments on HTML+RDFa (was Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:17:34 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <F78EEE8B-D55B-4292-8B6F-4A641125B22B@apple.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

On Sep 2, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> A further issue I noticed:
>>
>> HTML+RDFa extends HTML5 by making <link rel="profile"> and xmlns:*
>> attributes conforming (that seems to be the intent at least). But it
>> does not seem to make @rev, @content, @about, @property, @resource, '
>> @datatype or @object conforming or define their conforming values in
>> HTML5.
>
> Did you mean @object or @typeof?
>
>> It also does not make CURIEs allowed rel values in HTML5. Thus,
>> it does not seem to actually make RDFa syntax legal for text/html
>> documents.
>
> Hmm, I see your point. The intent was to make RDFa syntax legal by
> referring to the XHTML+RDFa specification. @rev, @content, @about,
> @property, @resource, @datatype, and @typeof as well as the valid  
> CURIE
> rel values should be conformant.
>
> A balance must be struck between being very clear in the HTML+RDFa
> specification and duplicating as little information as possible (if  
> any)
> from the XHTML+RDFa specification.
>
> Would informatively referring to the attributes and rel values help?  
> Or
> would you prefer that normative language is specified (which is
> problematic because we start duplicating information between XHTML 
> +RDFa
> and HTML+RDFa).

I think there have to be normative references. I think it would be  
sufficient to list the new allowed attributes and refer to XHTML+RDFa  
for allowed attribute values.

I think what's currently in the spec is not sufficient for a validator  
to do proper conformance checking.

>
> SVG Tiny 1.2 incorporates RDFa by reference, but adds some normative
> text to ensure that each attribute is intended to be functionally
> compatible with the intent of the XHTML+RDFa spec. Would adding
> normative language like that in the SVG 1.2 spec address the issue?

I believe so.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 19:18:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT