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

Re: Getting the XHTML+RDFa default profile to be interesting

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:26:56 -0600
Message-ID: <4CDAABB0.3060708@aptest.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
This was always my intention, FWIW.  At least, it was after I failed to 
convince them to just use our registry.

On 11/9/2010 5:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:09:12 +0000
>> Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> cool - what about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.2
>>> and
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml -
>>> aren't the same terms mapped to (or may be mapped to) different IRIs?
>>
>> Atom (which fed into RFC 5988) maps link relations by adding this
>> prefix:
>>
>>     http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/
>>
>> RDFa 1.0 maps many of the same relations to:
>>
>>     http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#
>>
>> RDFa 1.1 can't really differ from 1.0 - we're chartered to maintain
>> backwards compatibility as much as possible. However, the vocab could
>> use owl:equivalentProperty or rdfs:subPropertyOf to link to the IANA
>> URIs.
>>
>
> sounds like a good fix/workaround :)

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 14:27:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC