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

Re: capturing reserved keywords in @rel

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:52:47 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300801211952j9b167adyaf3cd64fac065d89@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hello Ben,

> There's a problem here with your approach: you're trying to make this
> match with a future CURIE spec, and I think that's the wrong approach.

Section 7 of the specification is all about CURIEs *now*, and all I'm
trying to do is make things consistent with that section.

> From an XHTML standpoint, we have to deal with existing practices, and
> the spec can be very simple: "in XHTML @rel and @rev, ignore
> non-prefixed values, except reserved keywords."
> > I'm sure the answer will be 'ignore them', but how, exactly?
> By just saying "ignore them!"

I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but I'm trying to
find out explicitly where you are going to put this in the spec, and
what you will say. As I keep saying, at this late stage we need what
the XForms Working Group likes to call 'spec-ready text'. If it's as
'clear as day' to you, then please...get it down.

One point to flag up though, is that the problem with this approach is
that documents will be validated under false assumptions. The DTDs and
schemas will say that @rel should be a CURIE, and whilst "license" is
valid CURIE syntax, it is not being used as a CURIE, and it's actually
a LinkType.

> You're trying to make this consistent with a future generic CURIE spec,
> and that's not necessary

See above.

> > Where would you put that rule?
> Specifically when we process @rel.

So the value in @rel ends up not being a CURIE according to section 7,
then. That's my point.

But anyway...it's the text we need. :)

> >   <link rel="license" href="..." />
> >   <link rel="[cc:license]" href="..." />
> No, we already voted that @rel would take normal CURIEs, not safe
> CURIEs. We should not reopen that issue. That would be a major change
> from what we've already accepted for more than a year at this point.
> The only open issue is what to do with non-prefixed values.

Obviously I realise that. I only suggested the safe CURIE approach
since the whole issue has been raised again. We had put this on hold a
while ago, and now that it has been reopened again I'm trying to help
find a solution.

It's difficult to vote on this without a concrete proposal, though.
Perhaps you can say the exact words you would use, and the exact place
in the spec you would put it.



  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 Tuesday, 22 January 2008 03:52:58 UTC

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