Re: RDFa and its relationship to XHTML

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