Re: [LC] Official SVG Tiny Working Draft Comments from W3C RDF in XHTML Task Force (ISSUE-2101)

Hi, Manu-

Manu Sporny wrote (on 10/9/08 11:06 PM):
> 
> @role should follow rules defined in XHTML 1.1 Role Module
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is not an official comment from the RDF in XHTML Task Force and
> will probably be mentioned by the XHTML WG. Mark, Shane and Steven were
> on todays RDFa telecon and had issues with the lack of specifics as to
> how an author could use @role. Just a heads up that they would like to
> see it clearly stated that use of @role should follow the specifics
> outlined in the XHTML Role Attribute Module[4]. We want to make sure
> that authors are not under the false assumption that they can put
> whatever they want to in the @role attribute.
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/

While we don't want to impose undue restrictions on our attributes,
preferring to leave that up to other formats, we do understand your
desire to make it clear that @role values should come from an
established taxonomy.

I would like for the values to have some sort of registry or
quasi-organized effort, but that is a longer-term issue that requires
more coordination and discussion. [1]

For the immediate-term, I have clarified that @role values are meant to
be somewhat restricted (in contrast to @class), and informatively listed
a set of references for those ontologies.  Additionally, I've added
another value, 'contexthelp', which I hope will be useful outside of SVG
as well.

Please review the modified wording [2], and let us know promptly if this
satisfies your comment.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0047.html
[2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/struct.html#RoleAttribute

Thanks-
-Doug, on behalf of the SVG WG

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 16:47:41 UTC