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

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-2: custom attributes for RDF shorthand

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <640dd5060706190809v287a825ekaf301043db3603a9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Ben,

I don't have a problem with not supporting this feature now, but there
is no need to rule it out for the future.

The aim of the feature is not to provide a shorthand, but to provide
rules for parsing something that may already exist in some given
language. (The idea of 're-use' does not need to be solely about
inline mark-up, but can also be regarded as giving semantic meaning to
_any_ already existing mark-up.) Obviously at the moment there is
nothing like this in HTML/XHTML, so we don't really need it, but when
you start importing things from other namespaces, it is a very useful
feature. For example, if you created an HTML/XHTML profile that used
the P3P attribute, you would want to make something meaningful from
@p3p11:p3p.

Regards,

Mark

On 19/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a "list of easily resolvable issues." We want to resolve these
> ASAP, using email preferably. In other words, please respond ASAP with
> your opinion on this. I encourage you all to consider that we need to
> not change or complicate the XHTML1.1+RDFa specification too much anymore.
>
> This email concerns ISSUE-2. A separate followup email will be sent for
> each remaining issue. Since ISSUE-2 is not very well documented in the
> tracker, I'll summarize it here:
>
> there was a proposal to allow for attribute shorthands for certain
> hidden triples, e.g:
>
> <div about="/foo/bar" dc:title="Foo Bar">
> ...
> </div>
>
> which would yield
>
> </foo/bar> dc:title "Foo Bar"
>
> Mark, jump in if I've described this incorrectly.
>
> I propose that we *not* implement such a feature in XHTML1.1+RDFa. My
> main argument is for simplicity and not having two ways of doing the
> same thing.
>
> (I'm even tempted to say that XHTML2+RDFa shouldn't have it, either,
> given that it starts to break away from the whole point of reusing
> rendered data as structure. But that discussion doesn't need to happen
> today.)
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Ben
>
>
>


-- 
  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 Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:09:38 UTC

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