- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:17:28 +0100
- 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 12:18:16 UTC