Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values [Final Take?]

Toby,

actually, under the current resolution, the triple will be

[] schema:url <http://www.example.org> .

Ivan


---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 15 May 2012, at 23:11, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:50:41 -0400
> Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
>> The thing is that @rel remains a valid RDFa 1.1 property (not RDFa
>> 1.1 Lite conformant, but a conforming processor MUST process @rel).
>> Adding a rule, specifically for HTML+RDFa 1.1 (which includes both
>> HTML5 and XHTML5), that removes these "junk" link relations from
>> consideration solves the problem for the typical junk link relation
>> terms.
> 
> Coming to the debate a little late perhaps, but this is a really bad
> idea. Look at the following HTML, and tell me in thirty seconds the
> value for the <http://schema.org/url> property...
> 
>    <div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="Person">
>      <a rel="licence" href="http://example.com/"
>         property="url">Toby Inkster</a>
>    </div>
> 
> The answer is...
> 
> "Toby Inkster".
> 
> Why? rel="licence" is misspelt. (Or rather, it's not - it's spelt the
> non-en-US way.) So a misspelling of one term changes the value of
> another term in a different attribute. Spooky action at a distance.
> 
> I'll suggest people re-read this old thread [1] from 2008. The long and
> the short of it was that if an attribute is empty (or only contains
> invalid values, so is effectively empty), then we should still pay
> attention to its presence. Anything else is confusing to end users.
> 
> ____
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/thread.html#msg20
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 04:58:32 UTC