- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:32:39 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 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
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? 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 "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. -Ben
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 23:33:25 UTC