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

Re: Review comments on HTML+RDFa (was Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:05:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9DC4F5.2050607@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak On 09-09-02 02.09:

> (Chair hat off, personal review comments only.)
> On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
>> This is a request for HTML Working Group review of the HTML+RDFa


>> This version also asserts that
>> "profile" should be a reserved keyword for use in <link rel="profile"
>> href="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab" />.
>>
>> http://html5.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa.html

   [....]

> 5 Modifications to HTML5
> 
> - I think it would be more accurate to say "Extensions to HTML5 syntax".
> 
> 5.1 Preservation of the profile keyword
> 
> - I'd suggest renaming this "The profile link type"; unknown rel values 
> are not dropped from the DOM, so there's nothing to preserve; the change 
> is adding an additional conformance link type.


Maciej and Manu,

The more pressing question seems not to be the profile link type, 
but the very profile issue - the HTML+RDFa draft defines the 
profile link type as "a language version signalling mechanism".

The HTML+RDFa profile points to the XHTML Vocabulary document [1], 
which defines link types whose semantics contradicts the semantics 
currently in the HTML 5 draft - see Bug 7475. [2]

The HTML+RDFa draft says that one MAY use a profile link to point 
to the XHTML Vocab profile[1]. One could assume that the reason 
for that "MAY" is that the XHTML Vocab[1] is taken for granted. 
Because, up until now - and hopefully in HTML 5 also - both HTML 
and XHTML has used the same vocabulary - the same profile.

Thus it seems to me like the HTML5+RDFa document calculates that 
the RDFa interpretation of those keywords will override how HTML 5 
currently define link types.

Which leads me to my real point(s):

(*) You probably want to update the HTML5+RDFa draft with *more* 
points that needs to change in HTML 5. Namely, you should add that 
HTML 5 needs to change to support the XHTML Vocab profile[1].

(*) Either that, or you should be clearer about the effect of 
adding the profile link - including the effect of not linking to it.

> - I'd suggest restating the sentence to say something like "for content 
> conforming to this specification, profile is a conforming link type.
> - I'd suggest adding a table row that matches the table in HTML5 Section 
> 6.12.3 Link types to define all the needed info.

Such a table would be a good thing! (Even if everything {except 
the very profile keyword!} probably can be found in the XHTML 
Vocab document[1].)

[1] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7475
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 01:06:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 September 2009 01:06:39 GMT