W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > September 2008

Re: rel=CURIE in RDFa, but rel=URI in Link:

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:32:04 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uiaffqeqsmjzpq@acer3010.lan>

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:35:22 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  

> Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I understand what you are saying.  However, I guess my response is that  
>> I believe the XHTML 2 Working Group has scope in this space explicitly  
>> by charter.  The group, in conjunction with the Semantic Web Deployment  
>> Working Group, has defined RDFa and it has gone through the W3C  
>> process.  It will very soon be a Recommendation.  This Recommendation  
>> includes an XHTML Module that defines @rel /@rev and a bunch of other  
>> things, and shows how they integrate with XHTML family markup  
>> languages.  It says that the lexical space for @rel /@rev is "  
>> (reserved word | CURIE  
>> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080619/#dt_curie>)+"  
>> and defines the reserved words that are recognized by RDFa processors.  
>> If someone else wants to extend that, they are going to need to find a  
>> way to do it that is consistent with this Rec.  If there is no way for  
>> that to happen, then it is an issue for the Hypertext Coordination  
>> Group, the TAG, and / or the Director.
> I think it's an issue that needs to be discussed and resolved anyway.

Well, as Shane suggests, that's what the hypertext coordination group  
(HCG) is there for. As Shane pointed out RDFa has gone through the W3C  
process, which includes announcing last call to the HCG, and making sure  
that groups register interest in commenting.

>> As to raising this with the HTML WG, there are representatives of the  
>> RDFa Task Force who have been doing so for ages in the context of the  
>> W3C group and the WHATWG.  I personally have stayed out of that  
>> discussion.  HTML5 is years from adoption, and there is plenty of time
> Unfortunately, this is not really the case. While *completion* will take  
> a long time, HTML5 features are being implemented as we speak. So  
> delaying that discussion would be a bad idea.

Well, RDFa is being implemented as we speak too. At least RDFa followed  
process and made sure that we had agreement on features before  
implementing them. Ignoring W3C process and then saying "it's implemented  
already, we can't change it now" is a guaranteed way to create this sort  
of problem.

>> to iron out wrinkles like these.  If HTML5 is to be a player in the sem  
>> web community, then it will need to accommodate RDFa.  We have tried  
>> hard to ensure that this is easy to do.  I hope that we succeeded.  I  
>> know that we have a proof of concept integration with HTML4 that works  
>> like a charm.
> Which is great. I think that getting RDFa to work well in HTML4 is very  
> important; I'm personally looking forward to get HTML4 documents  
> including RDFa to successfully validate (even if I need to provide a  
> different doctype).

In the meantime you can use the XHTML+RDFa doctype to get it to validate.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 09:33:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:30:30 UTC