W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2007

Re: xhtml-rdfa updated

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:29:52 +0200
Message-ID: <46BEC500.3010801@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


I had a quick look at the draft before I _really_ disappear tomorrow
morning for a week:-) But I wanted to give my first set of reactions.

- A stylistic thing: would it be possible not to use that frequently the
<meta> and <link> elements in the examples? This is more of a
'messaging' issue than anything else, but I guess one of the main
message we want to put forward is that meta information can be put on
_any_ element, and are not part of the header (via link and meta) only.
Eg, 4.1 uses the <meta> element only, and a casual reader may think that
we are talking about attributes for that element only...

- I am not sure that the XHTML Hypertext Attribute Module should be part
of this document. RDFa does not define any behaviour for hreftype and
hreflang (yet?). Unless these generate some additional triplets that we
have not discussed yet...

B.t.w., and this is an aside: the I18N people (eg, Richard Ishida) are
not very positive about hreflang. You may want to talk to him about
that. If it is true, then we should definitely not use our time in
defining extra triples for those at all...

- In HTML4.01 at least <meta>'s content is EMPTY. I do not think
XHTML1.1 changed that, and we certainly should not have that in RDFa.
Ie, even if we use <meta> as an example, we should use it with @content
and not with a literal child... (there are a number of examples like that)

-  Per 4.1.4: Per your question: I guess this is related with my
proposal[1], ie, the default value should be, _in my view_, ""

- Per 4.1.5 and 4.16, I have a bunch of questions on the predefined list
of attributes

	- I do not think they should be in the XHTML2 namespace but in the
XHTML instead. We hope that RDFa would become a rec on its own right,
and it cannot (and should not) refer to XHTML2 namespace that will not
be a rec at the time.
	- This also means that we should have only those attributes listed that
we really believe are defined in the XHTML namespace
	- I was also wondering whether those properties are recognized
everywhere or in the header part only (ie, as part of the <link> and
<meta>). I can live either way, in fact, but until now they were <head>
	- I think that, editorially, the emphasis that there are some
predefined values should be made clearer in 4.1.6 (it is done in 4.1.5,
4th paragraph)
	- is it so that there is a separate list of predefined names for
'rel/rev' and a separate one for 'property'? Do we need this

- In section 4.2:
	- 4th paragraph on the property value is wrong. Refer to [2]; that
could/should be described in English text...
	- the description of the @about is also wrong:-( I gave a description
of what happens, in my head at least, in [3]. Ben seems to agree based
on his implementation[4]. I guess that should be used as a basis for the



[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa/LiteralObject

Shane McCarron wrote:
> As per an instruction from Ben, I have updated xhtml-rdfa and the
> corresponding DTDs.  The updated editors draft, which still needs a lot
> of work IMHO, is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml-rdfa-20070811/
> The DTDs for xhtml+rdfa and html401+rdfa were updated in place at
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD
> Note that, as per our discussions on Thursday, the xhtml+rdfa example
> markup language DOES NOT permit xml:base - xml:base is not permitted in
> XHTML 1.1, and doing so in this markup language would be misleading at
> best.


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 12 August 2007 08:29:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:51 UTC