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

Re: A rose by any other name is just as thorny...

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:15:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4BAEADB0.7050205@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/26/2010 09:48 AM, Sebastian Heath wrote:
> Junk triples concern me. I like that rel="foo" is ignored right now.
> And I see room for odd decisions:
> 
> In a document with no @profile and no @vocab:
> 
> <a rel="foo" href="boo">I love foo.</a>
> 
> @about defaults to uri of current document. So subject of the triple is clear.
> 
> Predicate would be xhv:foo
> 
>  Object would be <full uri of document>/boo .

For XHTML, that's correct.

For HTML5+RDFa - it may be a different URL for foo. HTML5 will most
likely have a super-set of all of the XHTML elements with equivalencies
between the HTML5 keywords and the XHTML keywords to ensure that
reasoning agents know that "next" means the same thing in HTML5 as it
does in XHTML1.1.

We still don't know exactly how we will do that, but I think that most
would agree that /if/ the default profile documents are different, that
this is what the goal would become (ensuring the same markup generates
triples that mean the same thing across HTML5 and XHTML1.1).

> Or do browsers and rdfa parsers do different things with a relative
> url, making the object xhv:boo ?

xhv:boo is not correct.

As a general rule, browsers and RDFa processors should generate URLs in
the same way for the same attributes.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 01:15:55 GMT

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