W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:41:30 -0600
To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Message-Id: <1138977690.4991.1393.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 00:03 -0500, Ben Adida wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> DanC's FOAF Person URI is <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me>,  
> but <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/> returns HTML, which makes  
> <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me> a (potential) HTML element.
> DBooth, I thought you were saying that this is probably a bad thing,  
> assuming HTMLElement subclasses InformationResource, etc...
> Did I misunderstand?
> If DanC's setup is okay by the TAG,

I don't think the TAG endorses what I'm doing there.

The most relevant TAG issues are still open.

I'm starting to think that the profile attribute is key:
if you get an HTML representation of /baseballplayers
with <div id="peterose"> then baseballplayers#peterose
identifies that div element, unless the author says otherwise
using the <head profile> element.

This is a post-hoc refinement of the html media types
and the XHTML specs; i.e. I think those specs should
be ammendmended to specify this practice.

>  then I *think* that means that a  
> secondary resource can be a non-information resource, even when its  
> primary resource is an information resource. Someone correct me if  
> I've lost it.
> -Ben
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 14:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:17 UTC