W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: RDFa in HTML issues wiki page created

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:41:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4A196AC6.9070406@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
> ...
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues
> ...
> Does this help?
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Very much so.  Thanks!
> Indeed.
> Manu, I'm not sure whether the Wiki is supposed to be open for
> discussion, or whether you simply collect discussion topics over there.

Discussion on all topics on that page will help the RDFa community find
its way to answers. The page exists to create and foster discussion, so
yes - we should all be talking about how to address those issues.

Some suggestions to help us proceed more gracefully than we have in the

Some will see the issues listed on that page as already answered, while
others will see these as non-issues. Those that have identified issues
with RDFa in HTML should add their particular issue to the page. None of
the issues should be removed from the page. If there is already an
answer to an issue, the resolution should be noted on the page and moved
into the "Resolved but not verified" section.

> So here's one more comment on
> <http://rdfa.info/wiki/Rdfa-in-html-issues#Bogus_reserved_words>:
> The issue here is that there doesn't seem to be agreement outside the
> XHTML2 WG that that WG indeed is responsible for maintaining the list of
> reserved keywords. Pretending that what you decided is good for RDFa in
> XHTML doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work everywhere else.

Ah, yes - the LinkType registry discussion. This is certainly related to
the issue, but we should probably split the issues since they are subtly
different. Could you please add an issue to the rdfa-in-html-issues page
outlining what you said in your e-mail?

There are several people that strongly disagree with proposals that
point to a centralized LinkType registry and think that LinkTypes should
be specified by the language. Since this keeps coming up, we should note
it as an issue, but expect widespread disagreement on how to best proceed.

FWIW, I see issues with a LinkType registry as well as issues with
depending on per-language registries for RDFa. I don't think that there
is a clear answer on this yet - but I know others think this is a
resolved issue.

> So, what's the registration procedure for
> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/> -- and who's going to maintain it
> once the WG ceases to exist?

Which WG? Currently, the registration procedure for HTML4 is a done deal
(not more LinkTypes for HTML4). For XHTML1.1 and XHTML2, the LinkTypes
are defined in the language document. For HTML5, they're in a wiki.

The W3C has typically maintained these documents in the past, and I
don't see any reason why that would change. Even if we have a LinkType
registry, I would expect the W3C to manage that.

> What we need is a format-neutral registry (I want to be able to express
> link relations from non *HTML documents as well), and a registry that
> works in practice.

I'm not particularly opposed to that idea - although, I know others that
are opposed to the notion of a centralized LinkType registry.

Julian, could you please add the issue to the wiki so that we may track
how the discussion progresses?

-- manu

Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 15:42:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC