W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Review of XHTML+RDFa 1.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20100803/) (Tom)

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:00:43 +0000
To: mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
Cc: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101101190043.70892519@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:51:02 +0000
Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote:

> Just because you can't remember the rationale, doesn't make it
> stupid... ;)

Personally I think it's a bit of an annoying quirk. It means that, say:

	<html about="#topic">
		<head rel="foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf" resource="">
			<meta property="dc:title" ...>
			<link rel="next" ...>
		</head>
	</html>

Doesn't work properly, whereas it would if the elements were <div>,
<span>, etc.

It also means that while <head typeof="foaf:Document"> doesn't generate
a blank node, <html typeof="foaf:Document"> does.

I'd be in favour of dropping the rule if it weren't for the fact that
this would be an incompatibility between 1.0 and 1.1, which would
probably be even more of an annoying quirk.

FWIW my parser has an option to ignore the special treatment of <head>
and <body>:

	$graph = RDF::RDFa::Parser
		->new_from_url($url, { xhtml_elements => 0 })
		->graph;

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 19:01:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC