W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > December 2012

Re: New Editor's Draft for HTML+RDFa 1.1

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 17:47:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5jedMsebMj+giH9+D5_VG4sfNDGNJBZVCFMdE5ZDTKP9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2012, at 04:35, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I found a problem in the latest draft. In  "3.1 Additional RDFa
>> Processing Rules", it says to use "HTMLLiteral" from the RDF
>> vocabulary. But according to "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax:
>> 5.2 The rdf:HTML Datatype" [1], that should be just "HTML". So replace
>> the two occurrences of "HTMLLiteral" with "HTML".
> Good catch!

Thanks. ;)

>> Also, I think it's great that @value is supported. IIUC, it means that
>> @value from <input> elements also can be captured with RDFa, correct?
>> But I wonder why @value is defined to override @content, and not vice
>> versa? I don't recall the reasons for that. (I was expecting @content
>> to work just like @resource overrides @href. I.e. to always override
>> any host language specific attribute; in this case, @value.)
> To be honest, I do not remember. I am on my mobile now, cannot check; the same question arises for time, doesn't it?

You mean @datetime? Basically yes. Perhaps it was argued that
@datetime is more specific than @content? Regardless, I'm not sure the
same can be said for @value. I think it would be more predicable if
@content is considered "strongest". (Unless this leads to more
complicated rules, but it doesn't seem so.)

Also, I think there is another issue in "4. Extensions to the HTML5
Syntax". We do say "If the RDFa property attribute is present on the
link element, the rel attribute is not required.", which is good. But
I believe we must also add:

    If the RDFa resource attribute is present on the link element, the
href attribute is not required.

Otherwise, if you want to use bnode references (or an empty value to
resolve to base, which apparently isn't allowed in link/@href [1]),
you must also add an unused non-empty @href just to be compliant.

Best regards,

[1]: http://developers.whatwg.org/semantics.html#attr-link-href

> Ivan
>> Best regards,
>> Niklas
>> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>> A new editor's draft for HTML+RDFa 1.1 has been published which
>>> incorporates all decisions made by the newly re-chartered RDFa WG to
>>> date. As of this moment, there are no plans to add any new features or
>>> remove existing features from HTML+RDFa 1.1. This document is probably
>>> the one that is going to go to Last Call, so please review it and try to
>>> find any issues or problems:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/ED-rdfa-in-html-20121202/
>>> You can view a diff of the changes here:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/ED-rdfa-in-html-20121202/diff-20120911.html
>>> -- manu
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2012 16:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:32 UTC