W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2009

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:32:39 -0800
Message-ID: <49AF0F97.909@adida.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Microformat-defined rel and class values have their usual semantics
> regardless of whether one links a GRDDL transform converting them to RDF.

How is mnot going to figure out what those semantics are to generate a
proper link-type header? Will all microformats be added to the IETF
link-type registry?

I've read over this thread a few times, and I still haven't seen any
technical argument against the way RDFa handles @rel that is consistent
with specs prior to RDFa. We have an example with GRDDL (and also with
eRDF, though it's not a w3c spec) that @profile may define an *indirect*
way, using other elements and attributes, to interpret @rel. RDFa is no

Julian argues that GRDDL is not about interpreting @rel, it's just about
extracting RDF/XML. I don't see the difference, but if one wants to draw
a line, then simply put RDFa on the GRDDL side and assume that it's
"just a way to extract RDF/XML." I think you'd be missing out on how
much you can get out of RDFa, but certainly if GRDDL gets a pass on
this, then RDFa should, too.

In fact, remember that RDFa also specifies @about so you can, for
example, have multiple images each with its own unique copyright
license. For link-type to do the right thing, it actually needs to fully
parse the RDFa. I'd be excited to have the link-type spec do that, but I
doubt that's within its scope. So maybe ignoring RDFa  is the right
approach for link-type.

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 23:33:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:01 UTC