- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:53:04 -0400
- To: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > As per today's discussion, I would like to propose that we 1) merge the > reserved values from @property in [1] into the set of reserved values > for @rel / @rev in [2]. > I would then propose that we 2) delete the list of reserved values for > @property. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#sec_9.2.5. > [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#sec_9.2.6. +1 to not have reserved values for @property. Just to take a step back... do we really want to specify what reserved values are for @rel and @rev. Do we have to provide "backwards compatability"? Why are we providing backwards compatibility for LinkTypes in XH, but not in Dublin Core? As far as I'm concerned, these two should be treated the same - outside of the scope of RDFa. It would simplify the syntax document and make RDFa much easier to understand. We're not going to break anything by not listing these values as reserved. The Syntax document also clearly states that extra triples can be generated if needed, outside of the default graph[1]. Shouldn't "backwards compatability" be the job of each RDFa parser implementation? Why can't we treat old XHTML @rel/@rev LinkTypes as outside of the scope of RDFa? PROPOSAL: We don't have any reserved values for RDFa. An RDFa conformant parser MAY generate extra triples to provide backwards compatibility. This is strongly encouraged, but not required. -- manu [1]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070921/#processorconf -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk Launches World's First Open Music Recommendation Service http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2007/09/09/bitmunk-music-recommendation/
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 16:57:02 UTC