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

Re: Resolving remaining issues in the issue tracker

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:01:19 +0100
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <455D9CDD-748A-4A82-8979-7203D79CAABE@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Gregg, you were quicker (again:-)

The wording we have today in XHTML+RDFa takes care of the 

<html about="...">
  <body typeof="blabla">

case, which we considered to be frequent in practice and, with today's rules without the extra clauses, this would lead to an unexpected blank node. The clause is, I believe, also necessary for backward compatibility with RDFa 1.0. It is not a wording that should be in RDFa Core, due to the special 'semantics' of the head and body elements in HTML. So I believe XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is all right as it is, and the formulation added by Gregg to HTML5+RDFa is the right one.

Ivan

On Jan 7, 2013, at 07:53 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
>> ISSUE-146: HTML5+RDFa needs rule for implied @about="" on head/body	
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146
>> 
>> No it doesn't, we resolved this here:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-08#resolution_2
>> 
>> RESOLVED: Modify HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa to modify processing steps #5
>> and #6 from assuming an empty @about value to assuming that new subject
>> is set to the parent object.
>> 
>> We messed up and included that rule in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. We should publish
>> a PER for that spec with the rules for an empty about="" on HEAD and BODY.
>> 
>> PROPOSAL: Close issue 146 with no change to HTML+RDFa. Remove the rules
>> for injecting an empty about="" for XHTML+RDFa and issue a PER for that
>> document.
> 
> Note that setting to the subject to the parent object is not the same as removing the rules. The issue is that if you have <body typeof="schema:WebPage">, you want that to be on the subject of <html>, which does have the empty @about="" rule. If you remove the rules altogether, it would create a BNode instead.
> 
> I believe that that's what's currently in both XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa, so that they're consistent.
> 
> What we were worried about is that someone would do something like <html about="http://example.com><body typeof="schema:WebPage">... and that the type would be set on the document location, and not the about set on the root element.
> 
> The wording from XHTML+RDFa is the following, which I think is correct:
> 
> [[[
> 	 In section 7.5, processing step 5, if no IRI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then act as if the new subject is set to the parent object.
> 	 In section 7.5, processing step 6, if no IRI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then act as if the new subject is set to the parent object.
> ]]]
> 
> This is the wording I added to HTML+RDFa.
> 
> Gregg
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Monday, 7 January 2013 08:01:45 UTC

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