W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: RDFa Lite 1.1 Conformance Section - host language attributes (ISSUE-136)

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:22:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4F96D34B.2010704@aptest.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Actually, I think "RDFa Lite" conformant is a silly concept anyway.  You 
either use RDFa or you do not.  It is not conforming for a processor to 
handle only RDFa Lite, so I don't see how saying that a document only 
uses RDFa Lite attributes has any value or meaning.

Regardless, an HTML5+RDFa document would be conforming if it used @rel 
in places where HTML5+RDFa allows that attribute.  As long as it 
validates, it is conforming.


On 4/24/2012 11:08 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Ivan Herman<ivan@w3.org>  wrote:
>> Alex,
>>
>> this time I think I do not fully agree with you...
>>
>> Using @rel/@rev would push the source out of RDFa 1.1 Lite. Ie, that should not be allowed. I realize that @rel _may_ be used in HTML5, and that creates an additional issue which Stéphane just noted:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/0073.html
> There are a vast majority of HTML documents that use @rel attributes
> on link and anchor elements that do not have RDFa attributes.  If an
> author adds RDFa Lite, those documents, as specified wouldn't be
> considered conformant.  RDFa "borrows" the @rel and @rev attributes
> from HTML and makes them more pervasive.  As such, I would suggest
> that we allow a host language to include them given that they already
> exist and have been used for a long time in HTML.
>
>> But, if we go along option #1 in that proposal, a value of @rel with only predefined HTML5 value is immaterial from RDFa's point of view.
> Well, I personally rely upon @rel with predefined HTML5 values to
> produce relations between the current document and the target of the
> link regardless of whether it is RDFa Lite or not.  As such, I still
> think the conflict is in RDFa in step 11.  We have a dual use of the
> @property attribute that has unintended consequences in HTML.
>
> Meanwhile, option #1 doesn't address the existence of the @rel and
> @rev attributes in HTML.  The conformance clause would have to address
> the existence of these attributes.
>
> Also, to implement option #1, we'd have to disallow generation of
> triples for certain values.  We don't have anything in the algorithm
> nor in the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 specification that does this.  We'd then
> have to change how terms are processed and allow a list of disallowed
> values to be specified in the context.  I don't find that a pleasant
> solution.  Also, we'd have to specify in Step 11 that if the @rel/@rev
> attributes resulted in no triples, treat them as if they didn't exist.
>   We don't have language like that as of right now.
>
>
>> _My_ proposal would be to amend that paragraph as follows:
>>
>> [[[
>> It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, in case the Host Language authorizes their usage.
>> ]]]
>>
> That still makes HTML documents non-conformant when they use the @rel
> attribute, as they are likely to do so.
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 16:23:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:20 GMT