W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2010

Re: longdesc URLs and RDFa

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:41:37 +0200
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100819174137395994.2b50690c@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:16:30 +0200:
> Shane McCarron, Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:33:11 -0500:
>> I agree that these attributes are unique to (X)HTML, and therefore 
>> were we do include processing rules for them, those rules would need 
>> to be defined in the XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa specifications, not in 
>> RDFa Core.
> 
> My formal request also related to XHTML+RDFa. And I shall probably be 
> satisfied if @longdesc and @cite is supported in XHTML+RDFa. However, I 
> am not looking for a @typeof style implementation - see the arguments 
> in my preceding letters.

I am sorry. Yesterday I was too categorical about the @typeof proposal. 

Having reconsidered my responce to Toby [1], I can see that - contrary 
to what I said there - a @typeof solution could fit well together with 
a possible rel="longdesc" microformat - @typeof would be a shorthand 
method for such a microformat.

If the author *also* wants to point out that the @longdesc URI points 
to a transcript, then a @resource can be added to make that clear - I 
gave an example of how in the mentioned reply ... [1]. And since it is 
only a proposal for XTHML+RDFa, the problem with bogus @longdesc values 
does in principle not matter.

So if the Working Group considers @typeof as the right way to go, then 
I am prepared to accept. Though, perhaps someone should try to 
juxtapose the options to evaluate the pro et contra more systematically.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/mid/20100818212940874063.f84daa7f@xn--mlform-iua.no
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 15:49:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT