- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:36:03 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I had an action in the past (ACTION-100) on the link registry, bound to ISSUE-108. This was the result of a resolution we had on the WG: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-13#ISSUE__2d_108__3a__Refine__2f_deprecate_Link_relations where we decided to use the IANA registry as the authoritative list for the link relations. However, I think that the information given by Tantek: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0044.html changes the background of the decision and forces us to reopen ISSUE-108. The fact that the link registry is done via a wiki, ie, becoming way more dynamic than the IANA registry, coupled with the analysis of Jeni below reinforces my (and her:-) original opinion[1], ie, that RDFa 1.1 + HTML5 should ignore the link relations. Ivan [1] On Nov 12, 2011, at 21:10 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Obviously for consideration by this group too. > > Gregg Kellogg > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> >> Date: November 12, 2011 11:59:37 AM PST >> To: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Link relations in RDFa (Was: Re: Guidance on publishing in multiple formats) >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've written up the issues with link relations in RDFa as I understand them at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML_Data_Improvements#Link_Relations >> >> Please take a look and let me know if I've missed anything. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jeni >> -- >> Jeni Tennison >> http://www.jenitennison.com >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 12:33:37 UTC