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

RE: ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values): RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]

From: Grant Robertson <grantsr@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:27:00 -0700
To: "'RDF Web Applications Working Group'" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3F9E95FE99D44032897C4464ACF67518@grantdesk>
Well, I have been up past my bedtime two nights in a row, reading and
re-reading all the messages on this issue. It is clear that RDFa 1.1 (both
Lite and Core) will behave in an unexpected manner in the specific situation
described. And I laud the valiant efforts of the working group members to
devise a suitable workaround or modification to the RDFa 1.1 standard that
will eliminate this issue. However, I now fail to see this issue as a
"problem" that needs to be "solved." 

Incompatibilities arise all the time when using old, outdated standards with
new standards or software. Every software or standard development team will
tell you that there comes a point were infinite backwards compatibility
cannot reasonably be maintained. I believe RDFa has reached that point. 

Therefore, I propose that the "solution" to the "problem" is to simply state
the facts in evidence: RDFa 1.1 (both Core and Lite) is incompatible with
older versions of HTML. I propose the WG simply add text to the RDFa 1.1
Core and Lite documentation which states, unequivocally, that RDFa 1.1 is
not compatible with specified older versions of HTML. 

Now, some may say that RDFa 1.1 Lite could be compatible with old HTML but
this is a bit of a Catch-22. As soon as someone uses the specific feature of
HTML that is causing the problem (i.e. puts a @rel in the file with one of
the offending, old-HTML, attribute values), the RDFa in that document is no
longer RDFa Lite, because it has that @rel in it. All of these attempts to
filter out the old-style @rel attributes will just clutter up the standard
far too much.

If someone wants to use an older version of HTML, then I say A) they are
unlikely to be interested in RDFa and B) they can just accept that they will
have to use an older version of RDFa. Plain and simple. If someone wants to
use RDFa 1.1 in their web documents, then I say they should "get with the
program" and use a current version of HTML.

Further, I say we let the RDFa processor developers figure out their own
means of determining whether a document is non-conforming, older HTML or
compatible, newer XHTML or HTML5 or whatever. There is no need for the RDFa
WG to solve every problem that may surround the use of this standard. The
WGs job is to design the standard to be as useable and powerful as possible
for current HTML-Family standards. Everything else is gravy, as they say.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker 
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:45 PM
> To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values): RDFa Lite and non-RDFa 
> @rel values [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]
> 
> ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values): RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel 
> values [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/135
> 
> Raised by: Stéphane Corlosquet
> On product: RDFa 1.1 in HTML5
> 
> See Stéphane's mail:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/0073.html
> 
> also Ivan's first reply: 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/0074.html.
> 
> The proposed changes:
> 
> Option #1: ignore @rel if it only includes HTML Link types as 
> defined at http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-author/links.html#linkTypes
> 
> Option #2: ignore @rel if it does not include any explicit CURIE.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 01:27:15 GMT

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