W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: HTML+RDFa source updated (ISSUE-97, ISSUE-144, ISSUE-146)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 06:07:52 +0100
Message-Id: <58854825-7A29-4CF8-9EB4-D4A46DADD53F@w3.org>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>

On 3 Jan 2013, at 01:24, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Great work! Great also that the spec now makes @href on links optional
> if @resource is present.
> However, I now realize that meta seems to have a similar problem as
> link. In the HTML5 spec the part about meta at [1] reads:
>    Exactly one of the name, http-equiv, and charset attributes must
> be specified.
>    If either name or http-equiv is specified, then the content
> attribute must also be specified. Otherwise, it must be omitted.
> I.e. it seems that we need a similar text about meta as well, along
> the lines of:
>    If the RDFa property attribute is present on the meta element, the
> name attribute is not required, and the content attribute must also be
> specified.

+1. Thanks for spotting this.

> (The question will also arise (or already has) about whether the use
> of meta and link are to be considered Lite or not. I believe they are,
> since the set of attributes is not extended (and @content is already
> allowed on meta). But I suppose it depends on whether you interpret
> the extended allowances that this document adds to HTML5 to be part of
> HTML5 or RDFa...)

I am not sure I fully understand the issue. HTML5+RDFa includes meta and link everywhere; Lite is not a different language or profile, ie, it automatically inherits things.

The only question I have is: link uses @rel in HTML; is that allowed for a Lite? I would think yes, but this may have to be written down somewhere...


> Thoughts?
> Cheers,
> Niklas
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-author/the-meta-element.html#the-meta-element
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> Prior to the next conference call, I updated the HTML+RDFa spec to include some missing elements and added a "Reference Folding" section. That section, in particular, could benefit from some more editorial work.
>> * Relevant to ISSUE-97, I added text to use the text content of a <time> element, if the element has no @datetime or @content attributes.
>> * Relevant to ISSUE-144, I added a "Reference Folding" section with a short description of the feature, and nomative language specified using Ivan's SPARQL UPDATE.
>> * Relevant to ISSUE-146, I added missing steps for head/body.
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/Overview-src.html
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2013 05:08:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC