- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:51:53 -0600
- To: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-sparql-dev <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 15:46 +0000, Damian Steer wrote: > On 08/03/10 15:00, Dan Connolly wrote: > > I just ran into this message again from an HTML 5 validator: > > > > "The rev attribute on the a element is obsolete. Use the rel attribute > > instead, with a term having the opposite meaning." > > > Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away? > > Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share? > > I'm not sure I have anything to add to what you said, but my experience > bears out what you say. OK. thanks. > We use dc:contributor to relate university staff to publications > (broadly conceived). Every publication uses rel="dc:contributor" to > relate the topic of the page to members of staff (added to a link to the > staff page), and every staff page uses rev="dc:contributor" to relate > the topic of the page to a publication. > > I don't really want to repeat everything using a new relation type, and > rearranging the page so that the contributor is the object of the > relationship on their staff page would be painful. > > The existence of rev means that the rdfa additions to the html page are > minimal, and the relation type is uniform across the site. > > Damian > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 17:51:59 UTC