W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:17:28 +0100
Message-ID: <49AFC2D8.70608@gmx.de>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org
Ben Adida wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Microformat-defined rel and class values have their usual semantics
>> regardless of whether one links a GRDDL transform converting them to RDF.
> 
> How is mnot going to figure out what those semantics are to generate a
> proper link-type header? Will all microformats be added to the IETF
> link-type registry?

Could you clarify which specific microformat you're concerned with here? 
  I assume you are referring to one that defines new values for @rel?

> I've read over this thread a few times, and I still haven't seen any
> technical argument against the way RDFa handles @rel that is consistent
> with specs prior to RDFa. We have an example with GRDDL (and also with
> eRDF, though it's not a w3c spec) that @profile may define an *indirect*
> way, using other elements and attributes, to interpret @rel. RDFa is no
> different.
> 
> Julian argues that GRDDL is not about interpreting @rel, it's just about
> extracting RDF/XML. I don't see the difference, but if one wants to draw
> a line, then simply put RDFa on the GRDDL side and assume that it's

What exactly do you mean by "put RDFa on the GRDDL side"?

> "just a way to extract RDF/XML." I think you'd be missing out on how
> much you can get out of RDFa, but certainly if GRDDL gets a pass on
> this, then RDFa should, too.
> 
> In fact, remember that RDFa also specifies @about so you can, for
> example, have multiple images each with its own unique copyright
> license. For link-type to do the right thing, it actually needs to fully
> parse the RDFa. I'd be excited to have the link-type spec do that, but I
> doubt that's within its scope. So maybe ignoring RDFa  is the right
> approach for link-type.

If by "link-type" you are referring to Mark's Internet Draft: there is 
no conflict between it and RDF related technologies like RDFa. The HTTP 
Link header does in HTTP response headers what link/@rel does inside 
HTML. The issue, again, is the incompatibility of handling @rel in 
different members of the HTML language family.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 12:18:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT