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

Re: @vocab

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:48:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4BAF6C48.9010206@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Hello Sebastian,

On 24/03/2010 17:07, Sebastian Heath wrote:
>   I am concerned about how any rdfa tokenizing mechanism will overlap
> with the mechanism for defining new @rel values in HTML5. To be sure,
> this is one of the weirder parts of the standard. Anybody can stick
> anything  http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions and it's a
> candidate for being an official @rel value.

Indeed anybody can but its not as easy as you suggest to have one of 
those rel-values status changed to Accepted, It does say at the bottom 
of that page ....

"For the "Status" section to be changed to "Accepted", the proposed 
keyword must either have been through the Microformats process, and been 
approved by the Microformats community; or must be defined by a W3C 
specification in the Candidate Recommendation or Recommendation state. 
If it fails to go through this process, it is "Rejected". "

I am happy enough with that philosophy.

In any case I think RDFa 1.1 should only accept those rel-values marked 
as Accepted, and resolve them to http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# 
with the exception of XFN values which should be resolved to 

> How are parsers going to
> keep up with that? Let alone distinguish between those values and
> default values. FYI, this is discussed at section of
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/interactive-elements.html .

I think RDFa 1.1 should also accept the values defined at 
and resolve them all the way RDFa currently does, although that being 
said... I must say maybe RDFa1.1 should be thinking about maybe 
explicitly excluding some rel-values as not useful such as, "prefetch",  
"stylesheet", "nofollow" , "noreferrer", "sidebar", "external" and 
"icon".  I certainly would like a way of excluding certain undesirable 
triples, but that may be just me ;)

> Or am I
> misunderstanding something here?
no you are not misunderstanding anything the "details" have not been 
decided yet.

Best wishes.

Martin McEvoy
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 14:49:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:46 UTC