Re: Link relations in RDFa (Was: Re: Guidance on publishing in multiple formats) (ISSUE-108)

I had an action in the past (ACTION-100) on the link registry, bound to ISSUE-108. This was the result of a resolution we had on the WG:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-13#ISSUE__2d_108__3a__Refine__2f_deprecate_Link_relations

where we decided to use the IANA registry as the authoritative list for the link relations. However, I think that the information given by Tantek:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0044.html

changes the background of the decision and forces us to reopen ISSUE-108.

The fact that the link registry is done via a wiki, ie, becoming way more dynamic than the IANA registry, coupled with the analysis  of Jeni below reinforces my (and her:-) original opinion[1], ie, that RDFa 1.1 + HTML5 should ignore the link relations.

Ivan



[1]





On Nov 12, 2011, at 21:10 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> Obviously for consideration by this group too.
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
>> Date: November 12, 2011 11:59:37 AM PST
>> To: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Link relations in RDFa (Was: Re: Guidance on publishing in multiple formats)
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I've written up the issues with link relations in RDFa as I understand them at:
>> 
>>  http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_Data_Improvements#Link_Relations
>> 
>> Please take a look and let me know if I've missed anything.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jeni
>> -- 
>> Jeni Tennison
>> http://www.jenitennison.com
>> 
>> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 12:33:37 UTC