W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

link/@rel=profile, was: HTML5+RDFa first Editors Draft published

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:35:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4A5C2736.2050507@gmx.de>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> The first public Editors Draft of RDFa for HTML5 was published earlier
> today. You can view the draft in two forms:
> 
>  * [1] HTML5+RDFa Section (small 34K HTML document)
>  * [2] Complete HTML5+RDFa Specification (very large 4MB HTML document)
> 
> This blog post explains how this draft came to be, how it was published
> via the World Wide Web Consortium, and what it means for the future of
> RDFa and HTML5:
> 
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/07/13/html5rdfa/
> 
> -- manu
> 
> [1]http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/rdfa-module.html
> [2]http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/Overview.html#rdfa

Hi Manu,

thanks a lot for getting this started.

I have one question with respect to 
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/rdfa-module.html#document-conformance>:

"There has also been strong support from the RDFa Task Force that the 
profile attribute should be retained in HTML5, as it provides an 
"out-of-band" mechanism for signaling that the document contains RDFa. 
The profile attribute may also be used extensively to provide [RDFa 
Profiles] support. Adding profile to the list of rel values and using it 
to signal that the document contains RDFa places document processing 
instructions into the RDF graph, which is problematic."

I'm with you in that I'd like to see head/@profile be carried over from 
HTML4, but I have trouble understanding the last sentence:

"Adding profile to the list of rel values and using it to signal that 
the document contains RDFa places document processing instructions into 
the RDF graph, which is problematic."

How is that different from other link relations, such as "stylesheet", 
"nofollow", whatnot?

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 06:43:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 July 2009 06:43:09 GMT