- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:17:45 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 2, 2013, at 9:07 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > On 3 Jan 2013, at 01:24, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Great work! Great also that the spec now makes @href on links optional >> if @resource is present. >> >> However, I now realize that meta seems to have a similar problem as >> link. In the HTML5 spec the part about meta at [1] reads: >> >> Exactly one of the name, http-equiv, and charset attributes must >> be specified. >> >> If either name or http-equiv is specified, then the content >> attribute must also be specified. Otherwise, it must be omitted. >> >> I.e. it seems that we need a similar text about meta as well, along >> the lines of: >> >> If the RDFa property attribute is present on the meta element, the >> name attribute is not required, and the content attribute must also be >> specified. > > > +1. Thanks for spotting this. I updated the docs with this change. >> (The question will also arise (or already has) about whether the use >> of meta and link are to be considered Lite or not. I believe they are, >> since the set of attributes is not extended (and @content is already >> allowed on meta). But I suppose it depends on whether you interpret >> the extended allowances that this document adds to HTML5 to be part of >> HTML5 or RDFa...) >> > > I am not sure I fully understand the issue. HTML5+RDFa includes meta and link everywhere; Lite is not a different language or profile, ie, it automatically inherits things. Agreed, it's perfectly fine to use <link> and <meta> with RDFa Lite. > The only question I have is: link uses @rel in HTML; is that allowed for a Lite? I would think yes, but this may have to be written down somewhere... I would say that the use of @rel in <link> is not part of RDFa Lite, if the values of the @rel attribute would be interpreted by an RDFa processor. In other words, they can have terms which are ignored, but not CURIEs or IRIs. Gregg > Ivan > > > >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Niklas >> >> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-author/the-meta-element.html#the-meta-element >> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >>> Prior to the next conference call, I updated the HTML+RDFa spec to include some missing elements and added a "Reference Folding" section. That section, in particular, could benefit from some more editorial work. >>> >>> * Relevant to ISSUE-97, I added text to use the text content of a <time> element, if the element has no @datetime or @content attributes. >>> * Relevant to ISSUE-144, I added a "Reference Folding" section with a short description of the feature, and nomative language specified using Ivan's SPARQL UPDATE. >>> * Relevant to ISSUE-146, I added missing steps for head/body. >>> >>> Gregg Kellogg >>> gregg@greggkellogg.net >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/Overview-src.html >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97 >>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144 >>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146 >>
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 20:18:28 UTC