RE: CLASS and ROLE

José,

Thank you for your input; as Ben pointed out, this issue is in flux, 
so nothing lost, yet ...

I see your point, though - to me - this issue is rather a side front. 
It is some syntactic sugar that would make RDFa more compact, 
but we *could* live without it.

Anyway, it is good to hear that a big player as TID is adopting RDFa. 
In my feeling, it would be somehow strange if you stop your work 
merely due to this issue ;)

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
>Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:59 AM
>To: RDFa
>Subject: Re: CLASS and ROLE
>
>Dear members of the RDF-A group,
>
>My name is Jose Cantera, I'm with Telefonica and  I represent 
>Telefonica in some W3C groups. I'm writing this e-mail to 
>express our strong disagreement with respect to the usage of 
>the class attribute in RDF/A. The class attribute has 
>presentational connotations but not semantic connotations. You 
>are mixing things in a very dangerous and confusing manner. 
>
>We think it's a big mistake you are making. New attributes are 
>needed for expressing the semantics and not reusing existing 
>ones that initially were intended to other purposes. 
>Semantic-annotation attributes should be different than other 
>attributes and should easily be distinguished from the other. 
>
>Regarding the role attribute the same comment applies. Role 
>attribute has connotations related to accessibility but not to 
>semantics. New attributes for semantics are needed, although 
>we know that you are, as usual, adopting the ideas of browser 
>vendors who are not willing to create or consider new 
>attributes in HTML-like languages. 
>
>This issue, for us is a big issue, and somehow would "limit 
>and stop" our adoption of RDF-A in our research work. 
>
>Kind regards
>
>Ben Adida escribió: 
>
>	
>	Hi all,
>	
>	Though we have discussed the CLASS and ROLE issue, we 
>haven't quite
>	resolved the last consensus we came to. So, I want to phrase the
>	consensus as best as I understand it. We will vote to 
>resolve this (or a
>	modified version if need be) at next week's telecon on 
>4/23, so please
>	send all comments ASAP.
>	
>	Proposed Resolution:
>	
>	In all RDFa-compliant HTML documents (e.g. 
>XHTML1.1+RDFa), the CLASS
>	attribute is of type CURIEs, a space-separated list of 
>values. Each
>	qualified CURIE value yields an rdf:type assertion on 
>the subject
>	corresponding to the attribute's element, exactly as if 
>the element had
>	a child LINK element. Unqualified CURIEs are ignored, 
>e.g. class="foo".
>	
>	e.g.
>	
>	<div id="foo" class="big foaf:Person">
>	...
>	</div>
>	
>	yields
>	
>	<#foo> rdf:type foaf:Person .
>	
>	
>	Where the ROLE attribute is defined, e.g. XHTML2, its 
>value is also
>	CURIEs, thought this time it yields an xh2:role 
>assertion (with xh2 the
>	XHTML2 namespace). The subject resolution is identical 
>to that of the
>	CLASS attribute. As there is no "backwards 
>compatibility" issue with
>	this attribute, all values yield triples
>	
>	e.g.
>	
>	<div role="wai:Menu nav">
>	...
>	</div>
>	
>	yields
>	
>	_:div0 xh2:role wai:Menu .
>	_:div0 xh2:role :nav .
>	
>	
>	-Ben
>	
>	
>	  
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:21:47 UTC