W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2011

My opinions on the remaining issues (ISSUE-108, ISSUE-114, ISSUE-115, ISSUE-117, ISSUE-119, ISSUE-121)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:21:50 +0100
To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9F03E2C4-E82D-4E3F-84B2-C3FAE9B7C4A9@w3.org>
Hi guys,

as promised, here are my opinions on the remaining RDFa issues, as an input to your discussions...

ISSUE-108 [1] (on RDFa Core, XHTML+RDFa and HTML5+RDFa): Refine/deprecate Link relations for the RDFa 1.1 Default Profile.

We should have no predefined link relations in HTML5+RDFa. We may retain the old link relations in XHTML1+RDFa for backward compatibility. There is no way we can have any decent mechanism to follow and judge the link relations as developed on the microformat wiki. On the other hand, taking over the link relations from XHTML1 to HTML5 is not a viable approach either, after all, these relations may not be valid in HTML5 any more (now or in the future).

Note, b.t.w., that we _do_ have one link relation that is defined for RDFa Core (ie, for all languages), namely 'describedby', introduced as a solution for ISSUE-64 (see [2]).

----------

ISSUE-114 [3] (on HTML5+RDFa): HTML5 content model for @href/@src coerces values to URLs

I must admit I did not dive into this one. Have no clear opinion at this point.

----------

ISSUE-115 [4] (on RDFa Lite): Explanation on the Fragment ID in @about may be misleading

This is just an editorial issue, I leave it to the editors, though this issue may become moot if ISSUE-119 ditches @about.

----------

ISSUE-117 [5] (on XHTML+RDFa and HTML5+RDFa): Consider disallowing @about on <html>

I think the title of the issue is a misnomer; Toby proposed, in [6] (under his 1st option) to "Ditch the magic behaviour of the <head> and <body> elements in HTML+RDFa. Preferably in XHTML+RDFa too." All things considered, I am in favour of this (in spite of backward compatibility issues). I am not sure whether this should be done for XHTML+RDFa, too, I can go either way.

----------

ISSUE-119 [7] (on RDFa Lite): Should we concider adding @resource to RDFa Lite and drop @about instead?

I agree with this. RDFa Lite is really the counterpart of microdata in terms of complexity and usage, and @resource is a better match than @about.

---------

ISSUE-121 [8] (on XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa): Using @id to set subject in RDFa

I understand the argument in favour of this, but I am not convinced that the use cases warrant to addition of yet another feature. This is not a strong opposition of mine, ie, if the group decides to go the other way, I would accept.


Ivan



[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/64
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/114
[4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/115
[5] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/117
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0098.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/119
[8] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/121

----
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 Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:18:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT