- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:56:29 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Jeni, just one small remark: the property vs. rel issue is orthogonal. All these terms are recognized by both property and rel. I think the best way forward is to raise an issue by the RDFa wg Ivan ---- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net On 10 Nov 2011, at 18:16, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > Ivan, all, > > It seems to me that the mismatches between RDFa and HTML5 handling of link relations really needs to be raised as a bug on HTML+RDFa 1.1. The set of registered link relations at > > http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions > > (which is pointed to by [1]) is bound to grow over time, leading to pages that contain unprefixed properties within @rel being interpreted incorrectly by clients that use the HTML5 or microformats semantics. > > I guess a possible workaround would be for HTML+RDFa 1.1 to only pay attention to link relations which look like CURIEs (as they are explicitly excluded from being permissible link relations in HTML5; HTML+RDFa 1.1 also needs to explicitly permit CURIE values). Or more radically for HTML+RDFa 1.1 processors to ignore the @rel attribute altogether, which could be possible if the @property attribute takes on the additional semantics that the RDFWAWG have been talking about. > > Does anyone have any opinion about whether these issues need to be raised as bugs? Any volunteers to help with the summary/analysis/examples that would help to explain the issues? > > Thanks, > > Jeni > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/links.html#other-link-types > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com >
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 17:56:55 UTC