Re: Extended links in RDFa

Hi Toby,

Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 23:34 +0000, Toby Inkster a écrit :
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:29:43 +0100
> Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com> wrote:
> 
> >       * Empty span elements to define properties look like a hack.
Is
> >         there a better way to achieve the same effect?
> 
> Well, empty other elements (take your pick: <i>, <b>, <abbr>, etc) -
> but I'm guessing it's not the <span> you're objecting to!

No!

> You could replace this:
> 
>       <span rel="nhrefs:role" resource="nhrefs:authoritative" />
> 
> with something like this:
> 
>       <span rel="nhrefs:role" resource="nhrefs:authoritative">
>         (authoritative)
>       </span>

I have also been pondering using <img rel="nhrefs:role"
src="http://nhrefs.org/authoritative"/> (where an icon could be hosted
at http://nhrefs.org/authoritative) or <a rel="nhrefs:role"
href="http://nhrefs.org/authoritative"/>. I kind of like these
alternatives but wouldn't like to reopen the debate of the confusion
between resources and URI references! 

> >       * RDFa2RDFXML doesn't parse this correctly. Is that a bug
> >         RDFa2RDFXML or is this snippet invalid (or border line)?
> 
> In RDFa 1.0 (which is still the current recommendation - 1.1 is still
a
> draft), CURIEs used in the about and resource attributes need to be
> wrapped in [brackets]:
> 
>       <span rel="nhrefs:role" resource="[nhrefs:authoritative]">
>         (authoritative)
>       </span>

Oh, yes, thanks.

> One other thing you should bear in mind is that while <span /> will
> parse fine in XHTML, if you want your markup to be HTML-compatible,
> you should really include a separate closing tag, a la <span></span>. 

Yep.

Thanks,

Eric

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 13:55:00 UTC