- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:05:53 -0700
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Mark, I agree that if another host language has inherent semantics, we should find ways to let these semantics be expressed in RDFa. So let's leave that discussion to RDFa+XHTML2, as you correctly suggest. -Ben Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ben, > > I don't have a problem with not supporting this feature now, but there > is no need to rule it out for the future. > > The aim of the feature is not to provide a shorthand, but to provide > rules for parsing something that may already exist in some given > language. (The idea of 're-use' does not need to be solely about > inline mark-up, but can also be regarded as giving semantic meaning to > _any_ already existing mark-up.) Obviously at the moment there is > nothing like this in HTML/XHTML, so we don't really need it, but when > you start importing things from other namespaces, it is a very useful > feature. For example, if you created an HTML/XHTML profile that used > the P3P attribute, you would want to make something meaningful from > @p3p11:p3p. > > Regards, > > Mark > > On 19/06/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have a "list of easily resolvable issues." We want to resolve these >> ASAP, using email preferably. In other words, please respond ASAP with >> your opinion on this. I encourage you all to consider that we need to >> not change or complicate the XHTML1.1+RDFa specification too much >> anymore. >> >> This email concerns ISSUE-2. A separate followup email will be sent for >> each remaining issue. Since ISSUE-2 is not very well documented in the >> tracker, I'll summarize it here: >> >> there was a proposal to allow for attribute shorthands for certain >> hidden triples, e.g: >> >> <div about="/foo/bar" dc:title="Foo Bar"> >> ... >> </div> >> >> which would yield >> >> </foo/bar> dc:title "Foo Bar" >> >> Mark, jump in if I've described this incorrectly. >> >> I propose that we *not* implement such a feature in XHTML1.1+RDFa. My >> main argument is for simplicity and not having two ways of doing the >> same thing. >> >> (I'm even tempted to say that XHTML2+RDFa shouldn't have it, either, >> given that it starts to break away from the whole point of reusing >> rendered data as structure. But that discussion doesn't need to happen >> today.) >> >> What do you think? >> >> -Ben >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 17:05:54 UTC