- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:43:23 +1100
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org
Ben, the difference is that while GRDDL makes it possible to have a rel value mean something non-obvious (i.e., based upon information outside of @rel and @profile), RDFa requires it. On 05/03/2009, at 10:32 AM, Ben Adida wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> Microformat-defined rel and class values have their usual semantics >> regardless of whether one links a GRDDL transform converting them >> to RDF. > > How is mnot going to figure out what those semantics are to generate a > proper link-type header? Will all microformats be added to the IETF > link-type registry? > > I've read over this thread a few times, and I still haven't seen any > technical argument against the way RDFa handles @rel that is > consistent > with specs prior to RDFa. We have an example with GRDDL (and also with > eRDF, though it's not a w3c spec) that @profile may define an > *indirect* > way, using other elements and attributes, to interpret @rel. RDFa is > no > different. > > Julian argues that GRDDL is not about interpreting @rel, it's just > about > extracting RDF/XML. I don't see the difference, but if one wants to > draw > a line, then simply put RDFa on the GRDDL side and assume that it's > "just a way to extract RDF/XML." I think you'd be missing out on how > much you can get out of RDFa, but certainly if GRDDL gets a pass on > this, then RDFa should, too. > > In fact, remember that RDFa also specifies @about so you can, for > example, have multiple images each with its own unique copyright > license. For link-type to do the right thing, it actually needs to > fully > parse the RDFa. I'd be excited to have the link-type spec do that, > but I > doubt that's within its scope. So maybe ignoring RDFa is the right > approach for link-type. > > -Ben -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 23:44:08 UTC