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

Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp3FN+8rCvYtJc1qr85fLUNSaOvj1cjRXi_W=ovhrNf0CeXnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>>> Well, in my view, none of the two. I believe the response should be:
>>>
>>> <> <...homepage> <http://www.w3.org/> .
>>>
>>> And nothing else.
>>
>> In HTML5 with the HTML or XHTML syntax?
>
> Both HTML5 and XHTML5.

Looking at the rules in both the HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa documents, I
think any HTML5 document serialized as XHTML will be served as
"application/xhtml+xml" and so the the "XHTML+RDFa 1.1" initial
context will be used.  As such, they'll be different.

>
> I think the sentiment in the group, and definitely the feedbacks we got from different users, was that the automatic usage of the XHTML1 @rel value was not very popular (a typical case of pollute the space with triples originating from rel="stylesheet"). (At least that is my impression.) The only reason we kept the XHTML1 version was backward compatibility...
>

Your pollution is my useful information.  Specifically, I really want
@rel="related" and @rel="alternate" but there are other useful values.
 Of the values, only "noreferrer", "prefetch", and "stylesheet" have
operational (e.g. browser rendering, operation, etc.) semantics.  Even
"nofollow", which is strangely named, has useful semantics: "Indicates
that the current document's original author or publisher does not
endorse the referenced document."

If we didn't want "stylesheet" and few others, why didn't we just
leave them out of the initial context?

>
> With my W3C hat on:-) the extra processing on removing @rel values is defined for HTML5 only. It does not change the core processing steps. HTML5+RDFa language profile is defined as a recommendation by the HTML5 WG, and that is still further down the line. So we do not have a process issue for this.
>

So, we'd change the HTML5+RDFa document to modify the sequence
algorithm by reference?

If so, doesn't that mean we'd make XHTML and HTML syntaxes have even
more different outcomes?  That is, assuming use of the XHTML+RDFa
profile for XHTML syntax HTML5 documents.

Obviously, this is a "hot button" issue for me.  I doubt I'm alone but
I understand there are many other users out there.

-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 15:05:26 GMT

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