- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:02:41 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Toby Inkster, Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:25:22 +0000: > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 04:15 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> I think, to make RDFa "native" to HTML and simple to use, then a >> vocabulary for the HTML namespace could be useful. >> >> It should be simpler to use this vocabulary than other vocabularies. >> Either because it could be used without any prefix at all. > > XHTML+RDFa 1.0 already has this. I have long thought it interesting that XHTML+RDFa 1.0 offers most of what we cannot agree to add in HTML 5: RDFa (of course), namespaces/colon prefixes, especially prefixes in attributes, more compatible @rev/@rel vocabularies. That _may_ (and I guess, mostly) is served as text/HTML. And it is here _today_. The cat is out of the sack. > The default prefix is: > > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# > > And it contains a bunch of terms useful for describing (X)HTML > documents. It has terms like "chapter", "appendix", "contents", "index", > "glossary", "copyright" and "license". CURIEs in the default prefix are > written with an empty first part, e.g. the second CURIE in this > attribute: > > rel="dc:license :license cc:license" > > Within @rel and @rev in fact, terms from the current XHTML vocabulary > are treated as case-insensitive keywords, so the leading colon isn't > needed either. Is it, in principle, permitted to define and use a prefix also for the default vocabulary? > I'd certainly like to see the XHTML vocabulary expand to cover other > terms useful for describing typical XHTML documents. Authorship, dates, > topic/keyword, title and description properties seem natural additions. Perhaps the microdata vocabularies, or a derivate, could be a candidate vocabulary? > The vocab itself can be added to without needing any changes to RDFa, > though the new terms would not be recognised as case-insensitive > keywords by RDFa 1.0 processors. What decides whether new terms will be interpreted as case-insensitive or not? >> These HTML namespace vocabularies would then also be possible to use >> not only in HTML documents, but also in other mark-up languages. > > The SVG Tiny 1.2 Rec (which includes RDFa) unfortunately has little to > say on whether the default prefix and keywords apply to SVG. In my > parser, I decided that these should work the same as XHTML. Hopefully, > clearer guidance to using RDFa in non-XHTML host languages will be one > of the things an RDFa WG will deliver. > > When SVG or MathML are used *within* XHTML, I certainly think it's a > good idea to apply the XHTML rules throughout. Switching rules for > document fragments does not seem desirable. I was not aware of this unclarity. I agree with your conclusion. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 01:03:17 UTC