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

Re: [Fwd: [uf-discuss] Fwd: [whatwg] Removing @rev]

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:26:01 +0200
Message-ID: <cf8107640805160926i5e721e31k585be8c24660d6da@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Well, as long as this doesn't mean @rev may be dropped from (future
domains of) RDFa? I mean, if HTML5 "wins", and e.g. XHTML2
applications will be scarce to non-existant (and when XHTML 1.1(+RDFa)
"eventually" becomes a legacy format), having no support for @rev may
have a bad effect for lots of use cases.

It depends on other things, but since AFAIK @rev reduces the need for
repetition in a lot of cases, such as describing
memberships/composition (e.g. as I describe in
it (probably) has a direct effect on the ease of building end-user
applications that produce RDFa (since e.g. repetition of uri:s
requires parallell maintenance to handle the indent).

[Digression: It's a complex issue of course, but I'm uncomfortable
with the way HTML5 seems to drop stuff that are relevant to many good
things, e.g. RDFa. Well, @profile and @rev to date(?), but who knows
what else may be thrown out since "nobody uses it".. I hope for a
future for XHTML2. (Or even something like "web document markup" and
an extension like "web application markup", but that's another

Just my two cents.

Best regards,

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:27 AM, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> This has bearing on RDFa in HTML5... I had heard that @rev was being
>> preserved from somewhere as well... looks like it's on the way out.
> I noticed this while building my cleanroom RDFa parser on top of the HTML5
> parser. It actually strips @rev out. I don't understand why it goes to that
> extent when other attributes, e.g. "foobar", make it into the parse tree
> just fine. In any case, RDFa can function fine without @rev. I think it's
> rather pointless to get rid of it just because it supposedly confused some
> authors (those people can just keep on ignoring it), but if that's the
> decision, it's no significant skin off our backs.
> (Side note: my only delay in the cleanroom implementation is that all of the
> SPARQL engines require RDF/XML and not N3... currently passing 70-80% of the
> test cases...)
> -Ben
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 16:26:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:28 UTC