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

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

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:17:45 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8A81BD4B-7690-412D-B364-0586240957A8@greggkellogg.net>
On Jan 2, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> 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.

I updated the docs with this change.

>> (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.

Agreed, it's perfectly fine to use <link> and <meta> with RDFa Lite.

> 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...

I would say that the use of @rel in <link> is not part of RDFa Lite, if the values of the @rel attribute would be interpreted by an RDFa processor. In other words, they can have terms which are ignored, but not CURIEs or IRIs.

Gregg

> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
>> 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 Friday, 4 January 2013 20:18:28 UTC

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