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

RE: How to deal with an <a> link applied to a person's name

From: Michael Steidl \(IPTC\) <mdirector@iptc.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:12:27 +0200
To: "'Toby Inkster'" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a101cc8e8a$a919e7a0$fb4db6e0$@org>
Hi Toby and all:

Thanks for the help, I applied the additional @rel="rnews:homepage" and this did the job, now the Turtle output of our page looks like expected. And yes, I will read the RDFa processing model carefully - should we expect any significant changes there for version 1.1?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdfa-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdfa-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Toby Inkster
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 8:35 PM
> To: Toby Inkster
> Cc: Michael Steidl (IPTC); public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: How to deal with an <a> link applied to a person's name
> 
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:13:48 +0100
> Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > <p rel="rnews:creator">
> >   This picture was taken by
> >   <a target="_blank" typeof="rnews:Person"
> >      rel="rnews:homepage" href="http://www.riecks.com/"
> >      property="rnews:name">David Riecks</a>.
> > </p>
> 
> By the way, I should point out the fact that the snippet above takes
> advantage of the remarkable and somewhat intuitive situation that the
> following two links generate different triples:
> 
> <span about="">
>   <a rel="" href="target" property=":title">Foo</a>
>   <a href="target" property=":title">Foo</a>
> </span>
> 
> In the first link sets a title for the page the links were found on.
> The second link sets a title for the target of the link. The presence
> of @rel (even empty) has a surprising effect.
> 
> It all comes down to steps #6 and #7 in the RDFa processing sequence
> which include different techniques for establishing the subject of a
> triple depending on the presence of @rel/@rev.
> 
> (If you think that's confusing, in earlier drafts of RDFa 1.0 it was a
> lot worse. The situation depended on whether the values in @rel/@rev
> could be expanded to valid URIs or not. See, e.g. 2008-02-21 working
> draft.)
> 
> If we were chartered to make more backwards incompatible changes...
> 
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 18:13:37 GMT

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