- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:33:09 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Shane P McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, martin@weborganics.co.uk, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman, Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:48:43 +0200: > You said that the floodgate was opened when RDFa accepted @href and > @src. While this may very well be true, what you describe in your > examples go further. To stick to @longdesc, you seem to ask not only > to interpret @longdesc somehow, but also to assign a specific > property to it from the foaf namespace (and the same for @alt). I think you are shooting outside the target. I have not seen the FOAF use cases that made you take @src into the RDFa syntax - you seemed to say that that was what happened. But I don't believe @src is especially connected to FOAF, just because FOAF use cases made you take it into the syntax. I juxtaposed @data with @src - in a FOAF example - in one of the use cases. It is unfair to believe that I want a special link to FOAF for that reason. And it was not my intention to link @longdesc to a particular vocabulary. I simply tried to, on your request, provide use cases "to interpret @longdesc somehow". It should be simple to see from the use case I provided that I suggest to look at @longdesc as conceptually identical to @resource/@href. To be very clear, it was my intention to say that it instead of doing the following - which is necessary today: <img xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" src="diagram.png" rel="foaf:depicts" resource="diagram-data-as-a-table.html" longdesc="diagram-data-as-a-table.html" property="foaf:topic" alt="Development last six months." content="Development last six months." /> it should be enough to do this: <img xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" src="diagram.png" rel="foaf:depicts" longdesc="diagram-data-as-a-table.html" property="foaf:topic" alt="Development last six months." /> > This > is a significant step further than the usage of @href/@src which > simply set the object or subject of triples. In the use case above, the @longdesc simply sets the object. > Other than that, RDFa is > almost completely agnostic as for what vocabularies are used in the > triples, except for some of the 'inherited' historical @rel values > that (X)HTML carries (like 'next' or 'stylesheet'). > > In effect: the proper and complete logical approach along the lines > of what you say is: > > 1. make a thorough analysis of the whole of XHTML to find those > attributes and possibly elements that have a 'semantic' > interpretation in an RDF sense Even if I "went to far", this step does not sound very bad. However, by the logic I followed, it is still _not_ necessary to go this far. Instead, it only requires that one goes through the language (yes!) and identify _the "floodgate"_ that was opened through support for @src, @href and @content. I don't see @title in that flood. I have not seen any arguments that support that @title is in that flood. > 2. define the exact processing steps, ie, the extensions for the > general, RDFa Core processing steps for each of these I don't think I have suggested anything more specific for @longdesc and @cite than the language already says about @href and @resource. I think, what is needed, is to specify which attribute takes priority, if more than one is present. > To be very honest with you, and I must emphasize that this is my > private opinion, I believe this goes beyond what this Working Group > can, and indeed should do... Till now, I have not become convinced that you look at the same idea that I do. I hope what I said above, will make that clearer. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 10:33:42 UTC