Re: HTML+RDFa source updated (ISSUE-97, ISSUE-144, ISSUE-146)

(oops - forgot to copy the rest)

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:

> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The only question I have is: link uses @rel in HTML; is that allowed
> for a Lite? I would think yes, but this may have to be written down
> somewhere...
> >
> > I would say that the use of @rel in <link> is not part of RDFa Lite, if
> the values of the @rel attribute would be interpreted by an RDFa processor.
> In other words, they can have terms which are ignored, but not CURIEs or
> IRIs.
> >
> >
> > I am forced to disagree.  We have no way of constraining an RDFa
> Processor to only do things in a Lite context or a non-Lite context.
>  Consequently, any occurrence of @rel is going to be interpreted by a
> conforming processor.  And one conforming Processor cannot work differently
> than another with regard to the (minimal) triples generated, so all of the
> values of @rel are going to be processed.
>
> You're absolutely right that a conforming processor will interpret @rel as
> it would be anywhere else; it's just that, as a publishing profile, the use
> of @rel for RDFa Lite markup is not described, and I don't think it should
> be in the case of <link> either. Therefore, anyone trying to publish HTML5
> with RDFa Lite using the <link> element shouldn't use @rel for RDFa markup;
> this may mean that @rel is used for other purposes, for which we already
> have text in RDFa Core to support.
>
> > In theory a validator could flag the use of @rel on a <link> element,
> but why?  @rel is legal everywhere according to RDFa Lite.  At least that
> is my reading of the Profile.
>
> Ivan may do something like this in his processor, as I believe he outputs
> warnings when non-RDFa Lite is detected; I don't know what he does in the
> case of @rel for non-RDFa usage, though.
>
>
I guess this is my point.  There is no such thing as @rel for non-RDFa
usage.  Or rather.... an RDFa processor always interprets @rel.  If @rel is
not defined by RDFa Lite (I had forgotten that) then that only means that a
conforming document should not *intentionally* use @rel for RDFa.  But if
it did use @rel, and it did so in a place that was interpretable by an RDFa
Processor, then by definition a triple would always be generated - right?

And <link> is a perfect example of this.  HTML+RDFa permits @rel on all
elements, including <link>.  (Not HTML+RDFa Lite, I understand that).  But
since there is no announcement mechanism, a processor cannot distinguish.
 And when @rel and @href are used on <link> we get a triple, right?



-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.