- From: Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 <jeremy@miko.hk>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:42:46 +0800
- To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, "'Ben Adida'" <ben@mit.edu>
- Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Mark, See my comments inline. -- Miko-Kings Instruments Ltd. Web: http://www.miko.com.hk/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> To: "'Ben Adida'" <ben@mit.edu>; "'Jeremy Wong ???'" <jeremy@miko.hk> Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 7:08 AM Subject: RE: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005) > Jeremy/Ben, > > My first ever attempt at producing what became RDF/A actually did use > rdf:about [1]. In fact I tried to use *all* of the RDF/XML attributes, and > simply layer them onto XHTML. I was trying to make it so that a standard > RDF/XML parser could just start 'swallowing' RDF that it found in an XHTML > document. (An RDF/XML parser is supposed to skip over anything it doesn't > understand, so it's quite legitimate to place RDF/XML deep in a document.) I cannot agree with you that an RDF/XML parser is supposed to skip over anything it doesn't understand. It is because I wrote a RDF/XML parser before in accordance with the RDF/XML Grammer [1]. However, it is still not too difficult to implement RDF/A parser having experience in RDF/XML parser. > > However, although I got close, it is actually not possible to do this (as > with a lot of things, it's the way predicates are done in RDF/XML that > ultimately catches you out). And in my view, unless the RDF attributes > could > be used in their *proper* sense, they shouldn't be used at all. My > justification for this is not just because it might be confusing--although > that is certainly true--but also that just because I was not able to > develop > a technique that incorporated *all* of the RDF/XML attributes into XHTML > 2, > didn't mean that people couldn't still embed RDF/XML into XHTML documents > in > the same way they could in any other documents. If we had co-opted the > RDF/XML attributes for our use but slightly changed the rules, it would > cause mayhem! You may concentrate on those frequently used attributes, including rdf:about, rdf:resource, rdf:datatype, rdf:nodeID, xml:lang, xml:base. Other RDF attributes should be "obsoleted" in RDF/A syntax. By the way, the attribute "lang" no more exists in XHTML 1.1, "xml:lang" is forced to use instead. Using "rdf:" prefix may not be so confusing... > > The next iteration on the path to RDF/A (called RDF/XHTML [2]) therefore > involved adding attributes that were specific to XHTML 2. > > Regards, > > Mark > > [1] http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/xhtml-meta-data-02.html > [2] http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/xhtml-meta-data-03.html > > > Mark Birbeck > CEO > x-port.net Ltd. > > e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net > t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 > w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > > Download our XForms processor from > http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida >> Sent: 27 November 2005 22:42 >> To: Jeremy Wong ??? >> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005) >> >> >> >> Jeremy, >> >> Thanks for your comments. A quick response below. >> >> > 1. "rdf:about" instead of "about" >> > "rdf:about" is pretty well-known. To learn a new attribute, >> > "rdf:about" and "about" are no difference. Just a name to >> remember... >> > e.g., <p rdf:about=""><a rel="dc:creator" >> > href="mailto:bill.gates@microsoft.com">Bill Gates</a> blah >> blah</p> => >> > { <> dc:creator <mailto:bill.gates@microsoft> . } >> >> Having rdf:about but xhtml2:rel, xhtml2:property, and >> xhtml2:href seems inconsistent. Having them all scoped as >> rdf: is not possible without adding to that namespace, which >> seems like overkill. >> >> Note also that rdf:about is completely unknown to the HTML >> community, so I suspect this would cause more confusion than >> consistency. >> >> > 2. use the "type" attribute for typed literal The "type" >> attribute is >> > from the anchor element. >> > e.g., <p rdf:about=""><a rel="dc:date" >> > type="xsd:dateTime">2005-11-25T00:46:00+0800</a> blah >> blah</p> => { <> >> > dc:date "2005-11-25T00:46:00+0800"^^xsd:dateTime . } >> >> So you're suggesting "type" instead of "datatype". I'm not >> expert enough on this issue to say which is better. Any >> particular reason for your suggestion? >> >> > 3. use of Production "propertyAttr" [1] I recommend to use >> > "propertyAttr" for the case of "nodeElement" [2] only, never >> > "emptyPropertyElt" [3] e.g. <p rdf:about="" >> > dc:subject="SemanticWeb">blah blah blah</p> => { <> dc:subject >> > "SemanticWeb" . } >> >> This is an issue which we've currently put off. In the >> current draft, a property is never declared as an attribute >> except in special HTML- specific cases (like class and role). >> We may take this up again, though right now we're leaning >> towards simpler, fewer methods of saying the same thing. >> >> -Ben >> >> > > Regards, Jeremy Wong [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Infoset-Grammar
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 02:44:09 UTC