Re: Handling of @src (ISSUE-107)

For what it's worth, I have preached adding license information to
photos using just @src, @href, and @rel in about every tutorial,
customer meeting, talk etc. that I gave. Impact: barely noticeable ;-)

The official Google recommendation for the same task uses a more
complicated nested structure [1], so no worries for the way @src is
treated from at least that angle. Impact: see video view count,
multiply by uncertainty factor.

Best,
Tom

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quyhasVn2jw&feature=youtube_gdata_player



On 10.09.2011, at 10:24, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 06:36:57 UTC