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

Re: status of non-prefixed values in @rel

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:00:43 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300801180600m2764ebe0o6c8777408c0e5bdd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Steven,

As I said before, we're at the stage now where we need proposed
solutions that we can all talk about. Otherwise what you are saying
might sound to the casual reader a little like tilting at windmills,
since no-one has said that we should not support @rel="next", only
that we have yet to agree on a way to make it work and be consistent.

I know it's tangential to this particular discussion, but since you
raised it I have to disagree with your point about loss of simplicity.
Although at the end of the day this will often be a matter of opinion,
I do think that there is a great deal of simplicity in the model as it
stands now. And also, since we reintroduced chaining the current
concepts are very similar to my early drafts, which makes it doubly
difficult to argue that we have somehow 'moved away' from a golden age
of simplicity.

So which 'two paragraph definition' are you referring to, that you
think we've deviated from?



On 17/01/2008, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:16:17 +0100, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
> wrote:
> > 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?
> I agree with Shane. The idea behind RDFa in my mind is to extend the use
> of existing HTML constructs in a consistent and simple way to make
> semantics attractive for the street HTML author. This means to me that
> existing stuff works and fits in to the structure.
> My worry is that we are piling hack on to hack to fix the next problem we
> meet, and abandoning the original simplicity.
> My first definition of the semantics of RDFa was in 2 paragraphs! (Partly
> thanks to the declarative definition rather than the current procedural
> one). I mourn the loss of that simplicity.
> Anyway, I think rel="next" should work.
> Steven

  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

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

  standards. innovation.
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 14:00:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC