- From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:21:40 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFF7741448.AE5F8BDD-ON8025758B.004DF624-8025758B.004EE61F@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Shane, there would certainly seem to be some problems in here.
I'd like to work through some examples that illustrate, and perhaps,
partition, the problem.
A simple example articulated by Steven is the specification of the title
for a document by use of the <title> element in contrast to setting at
title using RDFa and perhaps the Dublin Core dc:title property. As a
consequence of the vF2F decision we would need to articulate the
equivalence and enshrine the adoption of Dublin Core for this property.
There would appear to be much more involved issues when we do not have
defined elements, or attributes, for a semantic but use attribute values.
The @role and its equivalence to @rel/@rev="role" looks like a bit of a
minefield.
There may be other types of usage I haven't thought of yet.
Regards, Roland
From:
Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
To:
XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Date:
10/03/2009 21:59
Subject:
XHTML2, RDFa, and MetaData
During the vF2F today, an issue came up that I wanted to try to capture
more cogently than I did at the time ;-)
Basically, there has been this underlying thread in the Working Group
for ages that we have never looked at too closely: some elements /
attributes are capable of setting metadata "properties" that are the
/same/ as other elements. E.g. the title element establishes a document
title - but we claim that setting a meta element with a property of
dc:title also sets the document title, and that these are the same
property. You can have link elements with a rel of next, but you can
also set rels of "next" anywhere with any element. You can have a span
with an about of itself, a resource of a CSS file, and a rel of
stylesheet.
Today I tried to argue that this was mistaken, and that we should not be
co-mingling the metadata from Meta-information elements and attributes
with those other sources. My argument seemed to fail. Steven seemed to
say that one focal point of XHTML 2 is a harmonization of the metadata
story so that it is possible to co-mingle metadata and content more
easily. That seems consistent with the RDFa approach, so I guess I
agree that for metadata that is what we are going for. In the spirit of
collaboration, I wanted to try to capture what I think are some of the
ramifications of this harmonized metadata model.
1. There are many ways to set the same "property" via the
Meta-information Attributes (e.g. RDFa). Such settings can happen
anywhere in a document stream, and can of course change as a
result of document mutation. This doesn't matter to an RDFa
processor, but may matter to an XHTML 2 User Agent. If we want
the user agent to care about all of these properties, we need to
specify conformance requirements for it.
2. Some XHTML elements and attributes clearly can be used to set
things that I would consider metadata. INS and DEL, for example.
@cite, @datetime, @edit, @layout, @title... Probably others.
3. There are a finite number of base properties defined in the XHTML
vocabulary document [1], but many of those properties have
corresponding elements / attributes in XHTML2. When those
elements or attributes are used (e.g., cite, title, role), an RDFa
processor should probably be extracting triples for those
properties, just as it would for the traditional RDFa attributes.
Correspondingly, to the extend that the user agent cares about any
of this metadata, setting these base properties via the
meta-information attributes should be reflected in the user agent
(@rel values on link, cite, title, others?)
4. There are potentials for conflict between these states, and we
need to carefully document how such conflicts are resolved.
I think this is incredibly complicated, and I continue to believe it is
an unreasonable burden on the user agents to try to harmonize this
information - but if that's what we want to do, we need to think it all
the way through.
[1] http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 14:23:12 UTC