- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:43 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Jay Myers <jay.myers@bestbuy.com>
On Sep 10, 2011, at 14:06 , Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > On the implications of change, the only one I can think of would be > sites adding licensing information about images directly to the <img> > element. I had thought that Flickr was using this technique but I've > just checked and it doesn't seem to be the case. So my guess is that > you're probably safe. > Thanks for checking flickr! > (And if your question is more about sites that I have deployed, then > we're not using @src in this way on LevelBusiness so it wouldn't be a > problem for me.) > Well, that was also my question, so it is good that this would not bother you... Cheers Ivan > All the best, > > Mark > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> (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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ---- 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 13:54:46 UTC