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

Re: Dumb Question

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:11:08 -0500
Message-ID: <465EC96C.3030702@aptest.com>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
CC: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>



Mark Birbeck wrote:
>
> I have to say though, that I think all of this is going to come back
> and bite us, just like the issue of not generating triples if @class
> is non-prefixed. I still favour some kind of switch that can turn some
> of these features on and off, since it seems to me just as legitimate
> to deal with these issues at the level of some triple store, as it is
> to constantly tweak with the syntax.
I personally still think that using @class at all is a huge mistake.  
The (new) HTML Working Group appears to be making that mistake too; 
adding semantics to class values where none previously existed.  We are 
introducing new functionality, and it should be coupled with a new 
attribute.  e.g. @role.  Or, if we don't like @role, something else.  I 
know that we don't like having people duplicate things, but seriously... 
principle of least surprise.  Alternatively, use a profile value to mean 
"this page wants to create RDFa triples using profile X" were X might be 
"use role for this" or "use class for that".  Dunno.  But at least that 
way it isn't by accident.

-- 
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, 31 May 2007 13:11:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:05 GMT