- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:24:11 +0200
- To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com>, Jay Myers <jay.myers@bestbuy.com>
(Ben, Mark, Jay, you will see below why you were explicitly solicited...) There is an open ISSUE[1] on the table of the RDFWA WG on RDFa on the exact semantics of @src. At present, @src behaves like @about. What this means that it is possible to write <img src="bla" property="prop" content="something"/> Because the content model of HTML does not allow for any children for <img>, this is the only way to do this without repeating the URI in @src somewhere. However, it turns out that this behaviour seems to be fairly unnatural to many, users seem to expect that @src behaves like @href, ie, it sets the object. Gregg (and others I believe) have reported that a major source of mistakes in using RDFa is the pattern <img rel="prop" src="bla"/> expecting to see something like <> <prop> <bla> . which of course will not happen. Put it another way, the design pattern <div rel="prop"><img src="bla"/></div> should be used all over the place and people do not really like that... So the issue recorded in ISSUE-107[1] is to change the behaviour of @src, ie, to make its semantics identical to @href/@resource. The WG has discussed this on its past telco[2] and, although people agreed that the current design was not optimal, it was not clear how to go ahead. Indeed, a change in RDFa 1.1 would lead to a backward incompatibility. Putting aside the charter issue, the real question is whether this would hurt existing deployment or whether the effect would be minimal. There was a straw poll at the meeting that was not unanimous, but with a majority accepting the change, but it was clear that this is something where we need more feedback. (Hence the explicit addressing of this mail to Jay, Ben, and Mark...) So, feedbacks please? I think the question we should concentrate on: would such a backward compatible change hurt existing deployments in a really significant manner? Thanks Ivan [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/107 [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-09-08#src_attribute__2c__ISSUE__2d_107 ---- 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
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 08:24:20 UTC