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

Re: Telecon Agenda - June 10th 2010, 1400 UTC

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:27:27 +0100
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100610072727.1b6d38de@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 23:10:46 -0500
Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/role-attribute/#using-role-in-conjunction-with-rdfa
> 
> I know that people disagreed with this, but if we could reach a 
> consensus I have a narrow window when I can update the draft before 
> publication.

I don't think this draft should be attempting to make
normative-sounding requirements for RDFa processors. Rather, it could
say something like:

"""
When @role is included in a markup language that also includes RDFa
Core attributes [RDFA-CORE], a Processor that supports both RDFa and
@role MAY provide a graph that includes data from both. In that
case, it MUST process the role values as follows:

  * The subject is the value of @id if present. Otherwise the subject is
    a unique newly created bnode.
  * The predicate is the term role in the vocabulary defined at
    http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab.
  * Each value of @role is an object, forming an RDF triple with the
    subject and predicate defined above.
"""

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT