Hi, Manu- Manu Sporny wrote (on 10/9/08 11:06 PM): > > @role should follow rules defined in XHTML 1.1 Role Module > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > This is not an official comment from the RDF in XHTML Task Force and > will probably be mentioned by the XHTML WG. Mark, Shane and Steven were > on todays RDFa telecon and had issues with the lack of specifics as to > how an author could use @role. Just a heads up that they would like to > see it clearly stated that use of @role should follow the specifics > outlined in the XHTML Role Attribute Module[4]. We want to make sure > that authors are not under the false assumption that they can put > whatever they want to in the @role attribute. > > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/ While we don't want to impose undue restrictions on our attributes, preferring to leave that up to other formats, we do understand your desire to make it clear that @role values should come from an established taxonomy. I would like for the values to have some sort of registry or quasi-organized effort, but that is a longer-term issue that requires more coordination and discussion. [1] For the immediate-term, I have clarified that @role values are meant to be somewhat restricted (in contrast to @class), and informatively listed a set of references for those ontologies. Additionally, I've added another value, 'contexthelp', which I hope will be useful outside of SVG as well. Please review the modified wording [2], and let us know promptly if this satisfies your comment. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0047.html [2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/struct.html#RoleAttribute Thanks- -Doug, on behalf of the SVG WGReceived on Friday, 10 October 2008 16:47:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 October 2008 16:47:43 GMT