W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2011

Re: RDFa Core last call comments - "have not yet caught up"

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 20:13:31 +0100
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <C0DF92F2-8118-4D5D-AD58-E8ACFB18B621@jenitennison.com>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Hi Jonathan,

I'm still trying to catch up / understand the issue with the about="#me" type references in the RDFa Core 1.1 Working Draft [1]. There are two scenarios:

1. Where there is no element with an id="me" -- in this case you just have a broken link, right? There's no conflict about the semantics of the fragment because it never refers to an XHTML element.

2. Where there is an element with an id="me" -- in this case *if you get the HTML* then the #me refers to that element but you might get another representation (eg RDF/XML) as the result of conneg which either (a) doesn't have any such fragment or (b) has such a fragment but meaning something different.

There are a number of examples of the first in the RDFa WD, but don't see that it's a problem -- it's not as if all fragment identifiers *must* be resolved, is it?

Regarding the second, the only example in the RDFa WD that I can see is:

<html profile='http://www.example.org/vocab-rdf-dc.html'>
    <title>On Crime and Punishment</title>
    <base href="http://www.example.com/candp.xhtml" />
    <blockquote about="#q1" rel="dcterms:source" resource="urn:ISBN:0140449132">
      <p id="q1">
        Rodion Romanovitch! My dear friend! If you go on in this way
        you will go mad, I am positive! Drink, pray, if only a few drops!

Is this the particular example in the spec that's caused concerns to the TAG?

In this case, the RDF statement is:

  <http://www.example.com/candp.xhtml#q1> dcterms:source <urn:ISBN:0140449132>

The syntax of the URI in this case makes me believe that it is not a conneg'd resource: it seems to be pointing directly to an XHTML document, which means the fragment would always reference that particular paragraph and the RDFa statement is (I think very deliberately) about that paragraph. Would it help in this case to have an explanation after that particular example that states this?



[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/
Jeni Tennison
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 19:13:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:38 UTC