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

Re: comment/question on the latest RDFa editor's draft: role attribute

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:09:43 -0500
Message-ID: <482325C7.3080800@aptest.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>



Ivan Herman wrote:
> Shane, Mark
>
> the reference you give is to
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004
>
> whereas the latest version seems to be:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407
Thanks
>
> I have a more substantial question/comment, however. The RDFa spec 
> refers to 'role' as one of the possible values for @rel/@rev. It then 
> says:
>
> [[[
> Indicates the purpose of the resource. For some possible values, see 
> [XHTMLROLE] module.
> ]]]
>
> I tried to understand what this means for RDFa. If I use 'role' as a 
> @rev/@rel value, this means I would have, as triples
>
> <> xhv:role <SOMEURI> .
>
> The [XHTMLROLE] document describes possible values of the @role when 
> no namespace is used, and those are listed in [1]. However, the 
> current RDFa spec does not allow the usage of
>
> <span rel="role" resource="[banner]"/>
>
> (the prefix-less thing is only expanded for @rel/@rev), so the only 
> legal usage is
>
> <span rel="role" resource="[xhv:banner]"/>
>
> (or, alternatively any other URI in another namespace...). I am afraid 
> this may be a bit misleading for the reader because the text in the 
> Role document might mislead him/her...
>
> If this is all true, could we maybe shortcut the text in the RDFa 
> document, without referring to the XHTMLROLE document, with, eg:
>
> [[[
> Indicates the purpose of the resource. For some possible values in the 
> xhv namespace, see [XHTMLVOCAB] module.
> ]]]
>
> which has an added bonus: we do not have a dependency on the 
> advancement of the Role module as a recommendation (I am not sure what 
> the timetable is there, with a bit of bad luck we might be suspended 
> to go to Rec!)
I am happy to make this simple change.  I do not believe we had a 
dependency on the Role document anyway, since it was not a "normative" 
reference.  At least it should not have been.  But that's fine.
>
> I also have a conformance question: is an RDFa implementation supposed 
> to check the resources associated to @rel="role"?
What do you mean "check the resources" ?


-- 
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, 8 May 2008 16:22:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 May 2008 16:22:39 GMT