- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:02:16 +0100
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, I also prefer a new attribute. The only thing I feel really strongly about is that we don't use @role for rdf:type, since I think that will come back to bite us in the future. So for me, that leaves two choices, use @class or use a new attribute. I can live with using @class, but I do agree that it comes with some baggage. I don't mean that from the point of view of some kind of 'backlash', since I think people are using @class semantically already (even without using microformats). What I mean is that I can easily imagine people forgetting to put foaf:Person (for example) in the class attribute on the containing element, since novice authors would probably see it as 'I must set the CSS class to foaf:Person for this to work'. I also believe that rdf:type is so important that it should be part of the core RDFa attributes, that are independent of any host language. A host language may have an additional way of doing this, and we might even decide in the future to use @class in HTML after all. But by having our own attribute, it means that there is a core way of marking up rdf:type that is always there, no matter what language is the host. So to summarise; my preferred approach would be to leave @class undefined for now--we can always come back to this in a future version--and use @isA or something like that, to indicate the rdf:type of something. Regards, Mark On 28/06/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I am a bit uneasy with the usage of @class. _I know_ that the formal > semantics of @class allows this type of usage, and I also know that the > microformat community uses that trick, I still feel that usage @class is > putting a semantics into the attribute that a lambda user would not > expect. (And yes, I am also uneasy with the way the microformats reuse > attributes like title, class, or abbr...). > > I would prefer to use a dedicated attribute if we need it (or simply > stick to the rel="rdf:type", which is at disposal anyway). > > I must admit I am not fully familiar with the discussion behind @role to > decide whether @role should be introduced in RDFa for XTHML1, too, to > cover this usage, or whether a different @type or similar should be > introduced. I guess this discussion should start _if_ ISSUE-3 is not > resolved for @class > > Ivan > > P.S. Having said all that: I do not consider this issue as life > threatening:-) Ie, resolving it quickly is probably more important than > spending lots of time finding the best solution. > > Ben Adida wrote: > > > > Another issue up for discussion. > > > > ISSUE-3 > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/3 > > > > The question is what @class and @role should yield in XHTML1.1+RDFa. We > > don't have complete consensus on this (we specifically note Steven > > Pemberton's worries about the reuse of the @class attribute), but the > > current solution, as accepted in the Primer and in many use cases, is as > > follows: > > > > @class yields rdf:type only if the value is namespace-qualified. @class > > contains a space-separated list of values. Only those values which are > > namespace-qualified yield rdf:type triples. > > > > @role does not exist in XHTML1.1, so it is not used here. In XHTML2, it > > is expected to yield a triple with predicate xhtml2:role. > > > > +1 if you agree, otherwise email your disagreements and explanation. > > > > -Ben > > > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 10:02:22 UTC