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

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

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:11:12 +0100
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120515221112.019b226f@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:50:41 -0400
Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> The thing is that @rel remains a valid RDFa 1.1 property (not RDFa
> 1.1 Lite conformant, but a conforming processor MUST process @rel).
> Adding a rule, specifically for HTML+RDFa 1.1 (which includes both
> HTML5 and XHTML5), that removes these "junk" link relations from
> consideration solves the problem for the typical junk link relation
> terms.

Coming to the debate a little late perhaps, but this is a really bad
idea. Look at the following HTML, and tell me in thirty seconds the
value for the <http://schema.org/url> property...

	<div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Person">
	  <a rel="licence" href="http://example.com/"
	     property="url">Toby Inkster</a>
	</div>

The answer is...

"Toby Inkster".

Why? rel="licence" is misspelt. (Or rather, it's not - it's spelt the
non-en-US way.) So a misspelling of one term changes the value of
another term in a different attribute. Spooky action at a distance.

I'll suggest people re-read this old thread [1] from 2008. The long and
the short of it was that if an attribute is empty (or only contains
invalid values, so is effectively empty), then we should still pay
attention to its presence. Anything else is confusing to end users.

____
1.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/thread.html#msg20

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:09:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:09:29 GMT