W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:13:44 -0700
Message-ID: <468BD548.5010008@adida.net>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org


Mark,

> I pressed send to early....anyway I don't think it's surprising that
> I'm confused on what we're voting on, if you look at your first email
> that kicked off this thread.

I see what you're saying now. The way I phrased it, it sounded like
everything is up in the air. In my mind, I was thinking that we were
simply formalizing what we had already informally agreed upon.

So, I'm still hoping we can formalize what we informally mentioned in
the telecon on 5/31, which is that @class is rdf:type and @role is left
to XHTML2, because otherwise we have a moving target.

To Shane's comment:

> Moreover, there is no "xhtml2" namespace, so saying xhtml2:role is 
> somewhat misleading.  XHTML2 uses the same namespace as XHTML 1 and 
> XHTML 1.1.

Okay, I won't dig into these details of XHTML namespaces, but I do think
we're getting ahead of ourselves here by adding @role in XHTML1.1+RDFa.
Let's not try to stuff as much of XHTML2 into XHTML1.1+RDFa as we can...
let's focus on RDFa, since that's the point of this work, right?
Otherwise, that goes beyond the scope of our collaboration, and it needs
a different numbering, e.g. XHTML1.2. I'm happy if XHTML folks define
XHTML 1.2, but I don't think *we* as a joing group should be doing that
now, since we're so close to XHTML1.1+RDFa, and @role doesn't seem to
play a big role in our current informal agreement.

Thoughts?

-Ben
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 20:17:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT