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: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:26:30 +0100
Message-ID: <640dd5060707050426o1ec823d6k8e7d617d237ea6f1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Ivan,

On 05/07/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Then one more clarification, if I may ask: what is the potential
> conflict with WAI Steven is referring to?

I think it's that if we were to say that @role == rdf:type, then we
would force that interpretation onto anyone that uses RDFa. it would
mean that the ARIA work from WAI for example, which builds upon @role,
would need to either adopt the same meaning as us, or avoid using RDFa
in their work (which would be a shame).

My argument has always been that something 'playing the role of x', is
not the same as 'something being x', and so @role should not represent
rdf:type. But that is where we are at now, anyway; the @role spec
itself doesn't say that @role == rdf:type, the ARIA schemas no longer
say that @role == rdf:type, and now, we also no longer say it in RDFa.

So I would suggest that there won't be any *future* conflicts,
provided that we don't go adding a meaning for @role that is out of
sync with the situation as it stands now.

Which means that the only thing we can safely add in the future is the
statement that @role == xh:role, which *is* defined in the @role
specification, and is also present in the ARIA work.

But like I said, I don't see any reason why that work can't wait until
a future release of RDFa, if people think we have enough to be getting
on with now.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 11:26:57 GMT

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