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: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:00:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOk_reHJFprrQM81jymfQe4Fe-z+UZO1ff9B=a+eyAa8cSAAZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Yeah - that was my point.  The only thing that would NOT match is,
predictably, the one thing I wanted to match.  rel="TERM", where term is
from the HTML4 / XHTML vocabulary.  But that ship has sailed I guess.

For the record, I *hate* that we have lost the ability to do the simple
thing that RDFa was initially devised to do.  Create RDF triples using
SIMPLE constructs from the initial context.  I am forced to define all
sorts of nonsense and NOT use RDFa Lite if I want to have simple @rel
values.

End of rant.

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I suspect my implementation should either not issue a warning for
>> link+rel, or should check whether it is an RDFa usage pattern, ie, whether
>> the value of href is a CURIE or a URI. Probably the latter. Wait... using
>> link with a URI is also a legitimate usage pattern! Ie, only CURIE-s are to
>> be flagged I guess...
>>
>>
> Where a CURIE is either a safe-curie or a thing that matches the
> production for a CURIE *and* the scheme used is pre-declared?  Or declared
> in the initial context?
>
>
> I guess all of the above...:-(
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>
>


-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2013 20:00:31 UTC

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