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: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:20:22 -0500
Message-ID: <468D4476.4070708@aptest.com>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

I am not opposed to a different attribute.  Note that, regardless of 
what we do in this task force, the XHTML 2 working group is releasing 
the xhtml-role module and actively deploying it independent of XHTML 2.  
Doesn't have to effect what we do here, just a data point.

Ben Adida wrote:
> A followup.
> As much as I'm distraught that we can't go with our unofficial
> consensus, I am forced to note that I'm the only one left fighting for
> @class. If anyone else out there on the list wants to speak up, it's now
> or never, because, even if the issue were closed, the current state of
> things would force me to reopen it.
> So, unofficial resolution or not, I am reopening this issue for discussion.
> My personal take (chair hat off) is that we stick with @class, using
> namespaced values only, mostly because the specifics here don't really
> matter much technically speaking, but the inertia does. I see an
> actively serious problem with using @role, since that has a meaning for
> WAI that is clearly not rdf:type (though it can be xh:role, of course).
> So, if @class loses, then I favor a new attribute altogether. @role
> should have an RDFa meaning, though I don't think it belongs as a core
> RDFa attribute and thus shouldn't really be added until XHTML2, IMO.
> -Ben
> Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I have kept quite on this issue, but have been ruminating on it for weeks.
>> Steven Pemberton wrote:
>>> Let me try and summarise the positions as I see them
>>> For class:
>>>     Used by microformats in a similar way
>>>     HTML Spec allows it
>>>     Already there, no new attribute
>>>     Implementations already using it
>>> Against class:
>>>     Special rule for namespaced/non-namespaced values
>>>     Confusion/objection by/upset for current class users
>>>     Used by microformats in a similar way
>> The class attribute does not take QNAMEs as values, it takes CDATA.
>> Moreover, CSS2 does not know how to deal with namespace-qualified class
>> names at all, so if we introduce this concept we run afoul of the
>> community that has, by all accounts, the best claim to the @class space.
>> While the similarity with microformats (how I *hate* that term) is both
>> good and bad, I do not think that we should attempt to steal the march
>> from microformats by co-opting the space they are ad-hoc operating in. 
>> We would be much better off working in a separate space and
>> demonstrating how much more powerful that other space is.
>>> For role:
>>>     Clean start, no legacy
>>>     No special namespace-prefix rules; can use default namespace rules.
>> XHTML is designed to permit the introduction of new attributes.  The
>> XHTML working group has already introduced this attribute into the XHTML
>> namespace, so it is available for use in this way.
>>> Against role:
>>>     Potential conflict with WAI use of role needs to be resolved
>> I think there is no conflict, but that's from an XHTML / WAI
>> perspective.  From an RDF perspective there may be.
>> The more I think about this, the more I believe that using @class in an
>> XHTML 1.1+RDFa context is just wrong.  Even using it in an HTML4 context
>> is wrong.  Having special rules for prefixed vs. non-prefixed values is
>> inconsistent with everything else we have done.  @role is a clean
>> solution that dovetails nicely with the original intent of the
>> attribute.  How it is transformed into RDF (rdf:type vs xh:role) I don't
>> understand or care, really.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 19:20:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC