W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: ISSUE-117 (about-on-HTML): Consider disallowing @about on <html> [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:52:32 +0100
Message-Id: <DD9B09E1-67BF-45C5-B2E2-4404C31DFE85@w3.org>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDF Web Applications Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, "sysbot+tracker@w3.org" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>, Shane P McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Just a remark on this issue. A slightly design principle remark, that is.

On our last telco Shane said he did not like to have exceptional behaviours. His remark was related to the time element, but I guess this can be a general remark. Well...we do have an exceptional situation with body and head, something that is a non-generic behaviour on these elements and these elements only. By dropping these we reduce the number of these exctions...


Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153

On 17 Nov 2011, at 11:54, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:39:24 +0100
>> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> What this rule says, in terms of elements, is that <html> (or any top
>>> element) _has_ this magic behaviour, ie, an @about="" is introduced
>>> on that level, conceptually (unless there is an explicit @about, that
>>> is). So what does <head> and <body> magic brings us?
>> As I said, I believe it is entirely so that people can do this:
>>        <body typeof="foaf:Document">
>> without generating a new blank node, and without having to go through
>> the back-breaking effort of adding about="".
> I believe so too. I think it also had to do with not being allowed to
> add any one of @about, @resource or @typeof directly to <html> due to
> DTD restrictions. But I'm not sure about any argument for the case of
> not having to use an explicit @about (or @resource). (Perhaps it was
> originally said that this magic should only work in the root <html>,
> where I imagine a marginal case for it..)
>> It's a fairly narrow use case.
> I very much agree. I would be all for dropping this! If I want to use
> @typeof in <head> or <body>, I would have to problems adding a
> @resource along with it (with either the subject or empty to use the
> implicit or via <base> supplied base). It makes it much clearer!
> So +1 for Toby's first proposal:
>    1. Ditch the magic behaviour of the <head> and <body> elements in
>    HTML+RDFa. Preferably in XHTML+RDFa too.
> (Although we should definitely check for any usage of @typeof alone in
> head and body in the planned scraping and analysis for RDFa usage.)
> Best regards,
> Niklas
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2011 20:52:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:27 UTC