- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:42:39 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <FB384FDA-864E-45BA-A267-37AD796B2BAB@w3.org>
I am fully with Gregg on that one... Ivan On Jan 10, 2013, at 04:29 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > >> On 01/07/2013 03:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> So I believe XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is all right as it is, and the >>> formulation added by Gregg to HTML5+RDFa is the right one. >> >> I disagree. We have a resolution that disagrees with the statement >> above. :) >> >> We got rid of these special rules because it is unnecessary in many of >> the use cases and is confusing to authors. We got rid of them because we >> wanted to reduce the number of magic subjects in RDFa 1.1. If we want to >> change this at this point, we can do that per the process. We'll have to >> re-open the issue because we closed it with a resolution: >> >> RESOLVED: Modify HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa to modify processing >> steps #5 and #6 from assuming an empty @about value to assuming >> that new subject is set to the parent object. > > Yes, what this did was change the old behavior which had an implicit @about="" on <head> and <body>, which is what would lead to the problem. The new text specifically says to set the new subject from the parent object. Without this text, if you had typeof="schema:WebPage", in step 5, it would allocate a new BNode, and you'd get the following: > > [ a schema:WebPage ] . > > where what is desired is > > <> a schema:WebPage . > > That's why a special rule is necessary here in step 5 and in step 6. > > [[[ > • In section 7.5, processing step 5, if no IRI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then act as if the new subject is set to the parent object. > ]]] > > This wording is entirely consistent with our resolution, and without it, would lead to the undesirable effect of using a BNode. In RDFa 1.0, you (mostly) got this effect, because there was an implicit @about="", which typically is the same as parent object, but could obviously be different. > > I think the text should go back in. > > Gregg > >> -- manu >> >> PS: I removed Gregg's text in the latest HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec because it >> was not aligned with the resolution that we had made before. I also >> think that the text in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is wrong and we need an errata on >> it, unless we're going to re-open this issue and discuss it again. >> >> -- >> 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/ >> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:43:06 UTC