Re: RDFa Lite 1.1 Conformance Section - host language attributes (ISSUE-136)

On Apr 24, 2012, at 18:22 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> Actually, I think "RDFa Lite" conformant is a silly concept anyway.  You either use RDFa or you do not.  It is not conforming for a processor to handle only RDFa Lite, so I don't see how saying that a document only uses RDFa Lite attributes has any value or meaning.

Shane, for practical reasons I do not agree. Indeed, it is not a matter of processor conformance, but there may be, for example, validators (actually, there *are* validators) that check RDFa Lite separately. Tutorials and primers will be written accordingly. Etc. Ie, I believe some sort of a document conformance clause should be around 


> Regardless, an HTML5+RDFa document would be conforming if it used @rel in places where HTML5+RDFa allows that attribute.  As long as it validates, it is conforming.
> On 4/24/2012 11:08 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Ivan Herman<>  wrote:
>>> Alex,
>>> this time I think I do not fully agree with you...
>>> Using @rel/@rev would push the source out of RDFa 1.1 Lite. Ie, that should not be allowed. I realize that @rel _may_ be used in HTML5, and that creates an additional issue which Stéphane just noted:
>> There are a vast majority of HTML documents that use @rel attributes
>> on link and anchor elements that do not have RDFa attributes.  If an
>> author adds RDFa Lite, those documents, as specified wouldn't be
>> considered conformant.  RDFa "borrows" the @rel and @rev attributes
>> from HTML and makes them more pervasive.  As such, I would suggest
>> that we allow a host language to include them given that they already
>> exist and have been used for a long time in HTML.
>>> But, if we go along option #1 in that proposal, a value of @rel with only predefined HTML5 value is immaterial from RDFa's point of view.
>> Well, I personally rely upon @rel with predefined HTML5 values to
>> produce relations between the current document and the target of the
>> link regardless of whether it is RDFa Lite or not.  As such, I still
>> think the conflict is in RDFa in step 11.  We have a dual use of the
>> @property attribute that has unintended consequences in HTML.
>> Meanwhile, option #1 doesn't address the existence of the @rel and
>> @rev attributes in HTML.  The conformance clause would have to address
>> the existence of these attributes.
>> Also, to implement option #1, we'd have to disallow generation of
>> triples for certain values.  We don't have anything in the algorithm
>> nor in the XHTML+RDFa 1.1 specification that does this.  We'd then
>> have to change how terms are processed and allow a list of disallowed
>> values to be specified in the context.  I don't find that a pleasant
>> solution.  Also, we'd have to specify in Step 11 that if the @rel/@rev
>> attributes resulted in no triples, treat them as if they didn't exist.
>>  We don't have language like that as of right now.
>>> _My_ proposal would be to amend that paragraph as follows:
>>> [[[
>>> It must not use any additional RDFa attributes other than vocab, typeof, property, resource, and prefix; it may also use href and src, in case the Host Language authorizes their usage.
>>> ]]]
>> That still makes HTML documents non-conformant when they use the @rel
>> attribute, as they are likely to do so.
> -- 
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> +1 763 786 8160 x120

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 09:40:45 UTC