- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:41:37 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli, Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:16:30 +0200: > Shane McCarron, Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:33:11 -0500: >> I agree that these attributes are unique to (X)HTML, and therefore >> were we do include processing rules for them, those rules would need >> to be defined in the XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa specifications, not in >> RDFa Core. > > My formal request also related to XHTML+RDFa. And I shall probably be > satisfied if @longdesc and @cite is supported in XHTML+RDFa. However, I > am not looking for a @typeof style implementation - see the arguments > in my preceding letters. I am sorry. Yesterday I was too categorical about the @typeof proposal. Having reconsidered my responce to Toby [1], I can see that - contrary to what I said there - a @typeof solution could fit well together with a possible rel="longdesc" microformat - @typeof would be a shorthand method for such a microformat. If the author *also* wants to point out that the @longdesc URI points to a transcript, then a @resource can be added to make that clear - I gave an example of how in the mentioned reply ... [1]. And since it is only a proposal for XTHML+RDFa, the problem with bogus @longdesc values does in principle not matter. So if the Working Group considers @typeof as the right way to go, then I am prepared to accept. Though, perhaps someone should try to juxtapose the options to evaluate the pro et contra more systematically. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/20100818212940874063.f84daa7f@xn--mlform-iua.no -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 15:49:14 UTC