W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Information resources and RDFa

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 13:22:46 -0400
Message-Id: <833A13CE-FEA9-4ED7-A0BD-ACB70AB0B6C5@mit.edu>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>


On May 13, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:

>> <p>
>>     <link rev="dc:creator" href="" />
>>     blah blah blah, <meta property="dc:name">Ivan Herman</meta>
>> </p>
>
> Ben, are you sure that is what you meant? Or did you mean:
>
>    <link rev="dc:creator" href="" >
>      blah blah blah, <meta property="dc:name">Ivan Herman</meta>
>    </link>
>
> which might be very close to what I said (I did not think of using the
> 'rev' trick).

I should have explained more clearly that, in my example, the <p>  
"embodies" the bnode. So, in fact, I meant the HTML I wrote. The  
<LINK> applies to the <P>, which turns into a bnode because it has no  
ID or ABOUT. The LINK and META both apply to their immediate parent,  
the P in question.

With the markup you suggest, we haven't yet exactly figured out what  
that means. Some have suggested it would be a means for reification  
(I think I said that at some point). So we're not quite sure yet what  
your suggested markup would mean, but we are in agreement about the  
markup I sent you with the use of REV.

> Well, I am not sure I understand. In XHTML1.1, the link and the  
> meta can
> appear in the head only. Allowing them in the body is something we did
> not have before, so there is no *necessity* to have them display:none,
> it can/must be defined as part of RDFa, right? They can just be  
> defined
> as the 'div' elements with the extra semantics re RDFa (namely the
> possibility to create a blank node...). But there might be another
> reason why the display:none is necessary... please tell me.

Right, but allowing them in the body is a decision of the HTML WG.  
And their position so far has been that LINK and META default to  
display:none. In the TF, we've chosen to stay away from these HTML  
rendering decisions, because they appear to be outside our scope. So,  
I'm not really answering your question, except to say that defining  
the display CSS property of LINK and META is not part of this TF's  
scope, it's a decisions for the HTML WG.

However, the one aspect that is fairly certain is that everything  
inside the LINK element would be clickable, which is one reason we  
use an immediately-closed LINK when we don't want clickability. There  
is also the question of whether nested LINKs and METAs will yield  
reified statements...

-Ben
Received on Saturday, 13 May 2006 17:23:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:02 GMT