Re: [DRAFT] SVG Tiny Working Draft Comments from RDF in XHTML Task Force

Hi Manu,

This seems fine, to me.

The only thing I would say is that I doubt that they were trying to
give Microformats more freedom than RDFa; I think they simply
misunderstood the CURIE definition. So although what you are saying
about diverging processors, etc., is all true, I think it might be a
little 'strong' in relation to what they were actually getting at.

If you see what I mean... :)

Regards,

Mark

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>
> These are draft comments for the SVG WG. Please review quickly and send
> any corrections as soon as possible. I will send them off approximately
> 6 hours from now in order to meet tomorrow's comment submission deadline.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The following are comments from the RDF in XHTML Task Force related to
> the latest SVG Tiny Working Draft located here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/metadata.html#MetadataAttributes
>
> The comments revolve around the re-use of RDFa attributes in SVG, which
> we are very pleased to see, but feel that there should be specific
> direction on how those attributes are used.
>
> Re-use of RDFa attributes should follow RDF in XHTML processing rules
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/metadata.html#MetadataAttributes
> """
> SVG includes several attributes that may be placed on any element, for
> the use of attribute-based metadata formats. These include the 'class',
> 'role', 'rel', 'rev', 'about', 'content', 'datatype', 'property',
> 'resource', and 'typeof'  attributes. ***SVG makes no specific
> requirements about the values for these attributes, other than their
> particular value data types, such as a string or a space-separated lists
> of strings.*** Other specifications, such as RDFa [RDFA], Microformats
> [MF] patterns, or ARIA [ARIA] ontologies,
> """
>
> The current text leaves far too much room for mis-use and abuse of the
> RDFa attributes. It would be a shame if authors were allowed to
> re-define how a non-RDFa parser may use those attributes in such a way
> as to directly conflict, or even worse, create ambiguity with regard to
> the current RDF in XHTML parser rules. The RDFa task force went to great
> lengths to ensure that the RDFa Syntax Processing[1] rules define clear
> behavior when RDFa is used in non-XHTML languages.
>
> Please add text clearly stating that if one re-uses the RDFa attributes
> that they follow the same processing rules as outlined in the RDFa
> Syntax Processing Rules[1].
>
> @rel/@rev values do not necessarily need to be prefixed
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/metadata.html#MetadataAttributes
> """
> When used with RDFa, the values for the 'rel' and 'rev' attributes must
> be a CURIE [RDFA] (i.e., a prefixed string, such as 'cc:license' to
> indicate a Creative Commons license), while the values may simply be
> from a set of specific keywords for Microformats. These formats may be
> used independently, or in combination if the keywords do not clash.
> """
>
> The @rel/@rev values in RDFa can either be a reserved word or a CURIE as
> defined in the RDFa Syntax document[2]. Did the SVG WG mean to allow
> specific keywords (reserved words) for Microformats and not for RDFa? If
> so, why the distinction? Why not follow the current RDFa spec, including
> reserved words, more closely? It would make the job of RDFa parser
> authors much easier as there are less special cases to consider when
> creating their parser. The current language requires all current RDFa
> parsers to strip out all reserved word processing in order to conform to
> SVG, which would lead to two increasingly divergent types of RDFa parsers:
>
> 1. Parsers that parse SVG RDFa.
> 2. Parsers that parse "XHTML+RDFa 1.0".
>
> In addition, the document seems to insist that terms must be of the form
> "x:y", instead of also allowing things like "license" (note that there
> isn't a preceding colon before a reserved word). It would be advisable
> not to limit @rel/@rev values to colon-only forms. We are currently
> working on a method to specify reserved words that will not need
> preceding colons.
>
> Please do one of the following:
>
> * Adopt the current RDFa processing rules as-is.
> * Define a set of reserved words that should be used in SVG Tiny.
> * Do not rule out the ability to use non-colon-prefixed reserved words.
>
> @role should follow rules defined in XHTML 1.1 Role Module
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is not an official comment from the RDF in XHTML Task Force and
> will probably be mentioned by the XHTML WG. Mark, Shane and Steven were
> on todays RDFa telecon and had issues with the lack of specifics as to
> how an author could use @role. Just a heads up that they would like to
> see it clearly stated that use of @role should follow the specifics
> outlined in the XHTML Role Attribute Module[3]. We want to make sure
> that authors are not under the false assumption that they can put
> whatever they want to in the @role attribute.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_5.5.
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/
>
> --
> Manu Sporny
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Bitmunk 3.0 Website Launches
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/07/03/bitmunk-3-website-launches
>
>



-- 
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 19:38:13 UTC