- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:09:43 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > Shane, Mark > > the reference you give is to > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-role-20071004 > > whereas the latest version seems to be: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xhtml-role-20080407 Thanks > > I have a more substantial question/comment, however. The RDFa spec > refers to 'role' as one of the possible values for @rel/@rev. It then > says: > > [[[ > Indicates the purpose of the resource. For some possible values, see > [XHTMLROLE] module. > ]]] > > I tried to understand what this means for RDFa. If I use 'role' as a > @rev/@rel value, this means I would have, as triples > > <> xhv:role <SOMEURI> . > > The [XHTMLROLE] document describes possible values of the @role when > no namespace is used, and those are listed in [1]. However, the > current RDFa spec does not allow the usage of > > <span rel="role" resource="[banner]"/> > > (the prefix-less thing is only expanded for @rel/@rev), so the only > legal usage is > > <span rel="role" resource="[xhv:banner]"/> > > (or, alternatively any other URI in another namespace...). I am afraid > this may be a bit misleading for the reader because the text in the > Role document might mislead him/her... > > If this is all true, could we maybe shortcut the text in the RDFa > document, without referring to the XHTMLROLE document, with, eg: > > [[[ > Indicates the purpose of the resource. For some possible values in the > xhv namespace, see [XHTMLVOCAB] module. > ]]] > > which has an added bonus: we do not have a dependency on the > advancement of the Role module as a recommendation (I am not sure what > the timetable is there, with a bit of bad luck we might be suspended > to go to Rec!) I am happy to make this simple change. I do not believe we had a dependency on the Role document anyway, since it was not a "normative" reference. At least it should not have been. But that's fine. > > I also have a conformance question: is an RDFa implementation supposed > to check the resources associated to @rel="role"? What do you mean "check the resources" ? -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 16:22:38 UTC