- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:25:01 -0500
- To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, 'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force' <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:00 -0400, Ben Adida wrote: > Dan, > > > I'm pretty sure the author didn't know that it produced any RDF > > triples. > > [...] The fact that triples are produced should not be a problem, > as long as those triples don't generate meaning that the author > didn't intend. Yes, quite. Agreed. I didn't mean anything more than what I said. [...] > > and I'm sure the author didn't mean to use http://www.w3.org/Copyright > > as an RDF property name. > > correct, that's because we haven't finished spec'ing the default > hGRDDL transform, and rel="copyright" is clearly an HTML reserved > name, which we'll transform appropriately into rel="xhtml:copyright". Interesting. I look forward to more details about that. > Please don't hold us up to perfect standards just yet. Well, I was just following up on Mark's msg... | RDFa can therefore be used *today* for simple metadata structures | (rel="tag", for example) If the details of that actually aren't worked out yet, he could be more clear. [...] > > No, I don't agree that producing > > > > <> <http://www.w3.org/Copyright> > > <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents> . > > > > from rel="Copyright" is already standardized. > > But producing > > <> xhtml:copyright <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright- > documents> > > is perfectly the intent of the author. Yes. > This is what will happen when we've finalized the hGRDDL stuff and > fixed the tools accordingly. OK, so I'll stay tuned for that. > > As explained above, I don't agree. RDFa seems to interpret @rel and > > @rev > > in a way that is not what XHTML 1.x authors intend. > > No, this is simply not true. You're implying that RDFa is somehow > distinct from the XHTML effort. I was assuming, quite dangerously, that Elias's code to implement RDFa is correct. I now understand that it's not quite there yet. > It's not. We're part of the XHTML WG. > And we're working hard to make sure that existing uses of rel= and > rev=, as per HTML specs, still end up meaning exactly the same thing > they used to mean. That's a requirement. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 20:25:19 UTC