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

Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values [Final Take?]

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:02:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jcYNqHgiy7pt_M=fb2o+exPV6Z0KqCrZye-JrjdY2oh+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Alex Milowski wrote:
[...]
>> As specified, I fail to see how the current HTML+RDFa 1.1 document
>> indicates any handling of documents served with the media type
>> application/xhtml+xml.  If all you have is the content-type header and
>> the XML (XHTML) document, how exactly do you choose between XHTML+RDFa
>> 1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 ?  If that was well-defined and rational to use,
>> that would go a long way in making this easier to use.
>
> It's even worse. Given text/html, how to you decode for microdata, HTML+RDFa or Turtle+RDFa (yes, it exists [1]). The fact is, you either need to decode against all formats, or have some a-priori knowledge to pick the proper processors.
>
> application/xhtml+xml adds in the possibility of XHTML+RDFa 1.0 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1, for which other indicators (DOCTYPE, @version) need to be used.
>
> The HTML+RDFa doc does need to clarify that it is applied to text/html as well as application/xhtml+xml, but I think this is implied by piggy-backing on the HTML spec, which already indicates that supports both mime types. Note that microdata doesn't go out of it's way to say it supports both text/html and application/xhtml+xml either, as it's assumed from the HTML spec.
>
> I would clarify the HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec User Agent Conformance with something like the following:
>
> [[[
> HTML+RDFa documents should be labeled with Internet Media Types "text/html" or "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236].
> ]]]
>
> There should also be an indication that XHTML mode HTML+RDFa 1.1 documents can be distinguished from XHTML+RDFa 1.1 documents by the lack of an XHTML DOCTYPE or @version.
>
> I created ISSUE-137 to track this on your behalf.

Thanks Gregg. This is very valuable, as there has been confusion about
this. We've determined before that XHTML5 is HTML5 and will be subject
to HTML5+RDFa as intended. With this explicit explanation things
should become clear.

Best regards,
Niklas


> Gregg
>
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#in-html
>
>> --
>> --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 23:03:11 GMT

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