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

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

From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:06:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOk_reFptuxvjJaUrU55XObufZzh5wEWgBR9cpWamUkkhw50kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:

>
>
> > 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.
>
>
I am forced to disagree.  We have no way of constraining an RDFa Processor
to only do things in a Lite context or a non-Lite context.  Consequently,
any occurrence of @rel is going to be interpreted by a conforming
processor.  And one conforming Processor cannot work differently than
another with regard to the (minimal) triples generated, so all of the
values of @rel are going to be processed.

In theory a validator could flag the use of @rel on a <link> element, but
why?  @rel is legal everywhere according to RDFa Lite.  At least that is my
reading of the Profile.


-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 23:06:34 UTC

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