W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

Re: status of non-prefixed values in @rel

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:16:17 -0600
Message-ID: <478D5AE1.4030606@aptest.com>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

FWIW, this is a deal breaker for me as well.  The only use case I have 
for this stuff at all is rel="next" and rel="license".  You can talk all 
you want about unwanted triples being generated and how evil that might 
be, but I *WANT* these triples from my existing documents.  And I do not 
want to have to go back through everything I have ever done and change 
it just to get them.  If that's what we are building here, we have failed.

I don't think it is at all necessary to generalize this with regard to 
CURIEs.  This has nothing to do with CURIEs.  I appreciate that there is 
a sort of issue with generalized processing of CURIEs if your 
implementation wanted to process CURIEs in an early phase of parsing, 
but thats just an implementation detail.  The implementation needs to 
ignore non-prefixed rel and rev values except for those from our list - 
those it needs to pretend have out prefix.

This is really important to the XHTML community.  rel=":next" is not 
acceptable to me, and I cannot imagine it would be to the rest of the 
troops or to the great unwashed out there.  I am pretty sure that Steven 
agrees with me on this - Steven?

Ben Adida wrote:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>   
>> Not having rel="next" generate a triple in the default graph isn't a
>> deal-breaker as far as I see it, especially since we leave it up to the
>> parsers to generate those triples in other graphs, if necessary.
>>     
>
> The more I think about it, the more I realize that it *is* a
> deal-breaker for Creative Commons. After all, it's one of the driving
> use cases! Creative Commons is adopting RDFa because "license" was added
> as a reserved word more than 2 years ago, and it was understood for
> *years* that rel=RESERVED_WORD would yield a triple.
>
> I do have to apologize for somehow thinking this wouldn't be an issue
> last month. I was very very wrong.
>
> Saying that "parsers may wish to generate a triple if they want" doesn't
> solve the problem at all: when we tell publishers what RDFa to write, we
> need to ensure that *all* compliant parsers will find the triple.
>
> -Ben
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 01:16:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2008 01:16:46 GMT