Re: Comments on ISSUE-108 (Link relations)

On Oct 14, 2011, at 14:45 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> Ivan,
> 
> I strongly disagree.  Anyone is free to use any value in @rel at any time. There are no restrictions.  HTML5 associates some meaning to some values.  Where our value set overlaps with theirs, I am confident that our meanings are consistent.  Beyond that, I am confident that our values are 1) reasonable and 2) meaningful.  We went through a lot of trouble to develop that collection of terms years ago.
> 
> If your argument is that we should not put new barewords into @rel, then.... I think we are screwed.  With @vocab we can put ANYTHING in @rel as a bareword.  HTML5 browsers will not know what those values mean in the context of that vocabulary, and there's nothing we can do about that.

Shane,

what we are talking about here is which terms we would accept in the @rel value _without any further ado_, ie, without any explicit @vocab setting. In this respect, I am sorry but your last remark is irrelevant:-(

In my view that is part of the default setting for a particular host language and it is not up to RDFa to decide.  For the HTML family of languages the obvious choice seems to be to take the @rel values that the language defines as part of its own specification. It so happens that these choices are different for HTML5 and XHTML, which is unfortunate, but it is not our job to pass a judgement over it... Of course, anybody can use, in any language (eg, HTML5), an explicit @vocab with the .../xhtml/vocab terms, ie, the XHTML terms, but that is then an explicit choice.

Ivan




> 
> On 10/14/2011 3:24 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Having read the minutes of yesterday[1]
>> 
>> I am not sure what justifies the usage of the full XHTML @rel value set for HTML5. Unfortunately, there is a difference in this respect between HTML5 and XHTML 1.1. It is not our job in this working group to override that; I think what we have to do is to accept what others working groups, in their area of expertise, do. That, unfortunately, leads to the fact that the default profile (I am not sure what the final name will be, so I still use this term) for XHTML and for HTML5 should be different.
>> 
>> - The one for XHTML may just do what RDFa 1.0 did, with the possible removal of stylesheet (alternate or not)
>> - The one for HTML5 warrants the HTML5 @rel values only (or a subset thereof, to be decided)
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-13#ISSUE__2d_108__3a__Refine__2f_deprecate_Link_relations
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> +1 763 786 8160 x120
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf