- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:58:13 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
In discussions at the time, IIRC, @rel was intended to work with @vocab to be consistent. But Robin’s right that this makes a mess of HTML containment rules. Without vocab, terms are defined in the RDFa initial context (not RDFa+HTML5 specifically). These are in the <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#> namespace, (e.g., <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#alternate>) so that “alternate” expands relative to that namespace, but it could be any URI defined in any initial context; I don’t think we defined a precedent order. On the one hand, this is clearly a bug related to HTML5, as values of @rel can take on different meanings. On the other hand, we break this by allowing TERMorCURIEorAbsIRI, so that a CURIE or absolute IRI is inconsistent with the HTML5 content model, but is certainly not ambiguous. If we can add an errata for RDFa in HTML to say that using this to interpret values of @rel is a bug (even though it’s specifically described in RDFa Core 1.1 section 5.1) it would probably make the most people happy. But, it will likely break some tests. Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net > On Nov 19, 2015, at 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > > On 19/11/2015 10:45 , Shane McCarron wrote: >> I don't feel this is a bug at all. It is as designed. In fact, the >> whole thing with @vocab was to permit the dpub (daisy and others) >> community to switch into their own vocabulary so they would not need to >> prefix their terms. I don't see how we could back away from that at >> this late date. > > Most `rel` values have no expectation of being treated as prefix-less > CURIEs. They are meant to be just that short string. > > As far as I can tell, the following actually produces a triple: > > <html resource="http://berjon.com/" vocab="http://foo.org/"> > <head> > <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://berjon.com/pretty.css"/> > </head> > </html> > > Testing that out, I get: > > <http://berjon.com/> > <http://foo.org/stylesheet> <http://berjon.com/pretty.css> . > > Which is absurd. What did I miss in the spec(s) that protects against > this sort of thing? > > -- > • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing > • > >
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 18:58:49 UTC