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

Re: ACTION-97: comments on link relations

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:26:36 +0100
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, jeni@jenitennison.com, tai@g5n.co.uk
Message-Id: <B8EA4B6B-3C6C-4750-BDED-B0E65337016F@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Shane,

but the problem that arises is: in RDFa 1.1, which link relations should be defined as default terms that a processor MUST interpret as .../xhtml/vocab/XXX. We still have not decided that.

As far as I can see, for RDFa1.1+HTML5, we have the following options for what the processor MUST processor:

(1) [1], which includes the overlapping ones
(2) [2]
(3) [2] minus those whose specification does not fit the 'semantic' aspect of RDFa (e.g., nofollow)
(4) only the overlapping ones

From an HTML5 point of view, (1) seems to be wrong: indeed, it seems that some link types are deemed 'illegal' for HTML5. I am not sure we should accept them then.

My gut feeling now says that it should be (3), though we have to determine the exact subset.

XHTML+RDFa1.1 is then a different ballgame and, to be honest, I am not sure what to do there. We may have to accept a divergence in these two languages, and say that [1] is the valid list for XHTML. Sadly, this has less and less importance for the future; what really counts is HTML5+RDFa 1.1...

Cheers

Ivan


[1] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#linkTypes

On Oct 12, 2011, at 21:01 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> Hey folks,
> 
> I had this action to look at the link relations we define in [1] vs. the ones defined in [2] to determine if they are consistent and, if not, what we should do about it.
> 
> The good news is that I don't think we need to do anything.  There are only a handful of link relations defined in HTML5 that are also defined in our vocabulary:
> 
> alternate, bookmark, help, icon, license, next, prev, and stylesheet
> 
> Each of these are defined in a consistent way.  The language is not identical.  We can make [1] have language closer to that in [2] if anyone thinks it is important, but at this point my recommendation is that we leave it alone.  Let [2] stabilize then decide if we need to make any minor edits.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#linkTypes
> 
> -- 
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> +1 763 786 8160 x120
> 


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







Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 06:32:52 GMT

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