Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Shane McCarron
Sorry for the delay - there were some technical difficulties.  However,
I have uploaded a very drafty RDFa Syntax 1.1.  You can get to it via
the drafts page at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts

Thanks!


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Mark Birbeck-4
Nice work Shane.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay - there were some technical difficulties.  However,
> I have uploaded a very drafty RDFa Syntax 1.1.  You can get to it via
> the drafts page at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ivan Herman-2
In reply to this post by Shane McCarron
Looking at the text: it is not clear to me whether @xml:lang or @lang
have the priority. Ie, what happens if they both appear on an element
with different values?

Ivan

On 2010-1-13 23:39 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> Sorry for the delay - there were some technical difficulties.  However,
> I have uploaded a very drafty RDFa Syntax 1.1.  You can get to it via
> the drafts page at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
>
> Thanks!
>
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Shane McCarron
See http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/#s_xhtmlrdfa

This specification also adds the |lang| attribute to the I18N attribute
collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_xhtml_modularization>].
The |lang| attribute is defined in [HTML4
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_html4>].
When this attribute and the |xml:lang| attribute are specified on the
same element, the |xml:lang| attribute takes precedence. When both
|lang| and |xml:lang| are specified on the same element, they SHOULD
have the same value.

This is the same text as is in XHTML 1.1 etc.

Ivan Herman wrote:

> Looking at the text: it is not clear to me whether @xml:lang or @lang
> have the priority. Ie, what happens if they both appear on an element
> with different values?
>
> Ivan
>
> On 2010-1-13 23:39 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>  
>> Sorry for the delay - there were some technical difficulties.  However,
>> I have uploaded a very drafty RDFa Syntax 1.1.  You can get to it via
>> the drafts page at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>    
>
>  

--
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: [hidden email]



Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ivan Herman-2
Ah, right.

I would propose to make this explicit in the processing step #3, too.

Ivan

On 2010-1-14 16:44 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> See http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/#s_xhtmlrdfa
>
> This specification also adds the |lang| attribute to the I18N attribute
> collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_xhtml_modularization>].
> The |lang| attribute is defined in [HTML4
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_html4>].
> When this attribute and the |xml:lang| attribute are specified on the
> same element, the |xml:lang| attribute takes precedence. When both
> |lang| and |xml:lang| are specified on the same element, they SHOULD
> have the same value.
>
> This is the same text as is in XHTML 1.1 etc.
>
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Looking at the text: it is not clear to me whether @xml:lang or @lang
>> have the priority. Ie, what happens if they both appear on an element
>> with different values?
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> On 2010-1-13 23:39 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>>  
>>> Sorry for the delay - there were some technical difficulties.  However,
>>> I have uploaded a very drafty RDFa Syntax 1.1.  You can get to it via
>>> the drafts page at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>
>>  
>
--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Toby Inkster-4
In reply to this post by Shane McCarron
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 09:44 -0600, Shane McCarron wrote:

> This specification also adds the |lang| attribute to the I18N
> attribute
> collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_xhtml_modularization>].
> The |lang| attribute is defined in [HTML4
> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_html4>].
> When this attribute and the |xml:lang| attribute are specified on the
> same element, the |xml:lang| attribute takes precedence. When both
> |lang| and |xml:lang| are specified on the same element, they SHOULD
> have the same value.

That's more or less the same as HTML5's lang/xml:lang handling except
that IIRC HTML5 stipulates that attributes with invalid language codes
must be treated as if they were absent.

--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:[hidden email]>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ian Hickson
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 09:44 -0600, Shane McCarron wrote:
> > This specification also adds the |lang| attribute to the I18N
> > attribute
> > collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD
> > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_xhtml_modularization>].
> > The |lang| attribute is defined in [HTML4
> > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2010/ED-rdfa-syntax-20100113/references.html#ref_html4>].
> > When this attribute and the |xml:lang| attribute are specified on the
> > same element, the |xml:lang| attribute takes precedence. When both
> > |lang| and |xml:lang| are specified on the same element, they SHOULD
> > have the same value.
>
> That's more or less the same as HTML5's lang/xml:lang handling except
> that IIRC HTML5 stipulates that attributes with invalid language codes
> must be treated as if they were absent.

This changed recently on advice from i18n; now they must be treated as if
they had a valid code that just isn't recognised. (And HTML5 says that
they MUST have the same value, and also gives the rules that apply to the
non-namespaced "{}xml:lang" attribute (where "xml:" is not a prefix but is
part of the local name) that one would see in text/html.)

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ivan Herman-2
Hi Hixie,

On 2010-1-14 21:27 , Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> This changed recently on advice from i18n; now they must be treated as if
> they had a valid code that just isn't recognised. (And HTML5 says that
> they MUST have the same value, and also gives the rules that apply to the

which makes sense of course, but what should an agent do if both are
there with different values? Is it then supposed to ignore both?

Thx

I.


> non-namespaced "{}xml:lang" attribute (where "xml:" is not a prefix but is
> part of the local name) that one would see in text/html.)
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ian Hickson
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Ivan Herman wrote:
> On 2010-1-14 21:27 , Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > This changed recently on advice from i18n; now they must be treated as
> > if they had a valid code that just isn't recognised. (And HTML5 says
> > that they MUST have the same value, and also gives the rules that
> > apply to the
>
> which makes sense of course, but what should an agent do if both are
> there with different values? Is it then supposed to ignore both?

This is a somewhat non-trivial question, due to the complexity of XML and
HTML parsing and the side-effects these have on the corresponding DOMs, so
instead of risking missummarising the requirements, let me just give you a
link to the relevant part of the spec:

   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/elements.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes

Let me know if that is unclear. (Note in particular that the first few
paragraphs are the authoring conformance criteria, and that the UA
conformacne criteria, including error handling for the case where the
attributes have different values, are given after the first note. If you
have the UA requirements highlighted -- the radio buttons at the top right
of the spec to toggle this -- then the UA requirements are shaded red.)

HTH,
--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ivan Herman-2
Thanks.

Looking at from an RDFa parser/distiller point of view (which is what I
do) I guess the UA part is the relevant one for me. And that says that
xml:lang has priority which is fine (and if I am a good guy then I can
issue a warning if the two values are not equal).

Thanks!

I.

On 2010-1-15 07:16 , Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On 2010-1-14 21:27 , Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> This changed recently on advice from i18n; now they must be treated as
>>> if they had a valid code that just isn't recognised. (And HTML5 says
>>> that they MUST have the same value, and also gives the rules that
>>> apply to the
>>
>> which makes sense of course, but what should an agent do if both are
>> there with different values? Is it then supposed to ignore both?
>
> This is a somewhat non-trivial question, due to the complexity of XML and
> HTML parsing and the side-effects these have on the corresponding DOMs, so
> instead of risking missummarising the requirements, let me just give you a
> link to the relevant part of the spec:
>
>    http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/elements.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes
>
> Let me know if that is unclear. (Note in particular that the first few
> paragraphs are the authoring conformance criteria, and that the UA
> conformacne criteria, including error handling for the case where the
> attributes have different values, are given after the first note. If you
> have the UA requirements highlighted -- the radio buttons at the top right
> of the spec to toggle this -- then the UA requirements are shaded red.)
>
> HTH,
--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Updated RDFa Syntax 1.1 draft uploaded

Ivan Herman-2
In reply to this post by Shane McCarron
Hi Shane,

Some comments on the draft text on issues that we may not have discussed...

- To be honest, I am not sure where we are now with the question whether I _must_ use safe curie syntax or not in an @about. My personal preference is still that safe curie has become unnecessary with the new curie processing. We have to keep it there for backward compatibility but that is it.

However, I am not sure the current text is consistent. The way I read 5.4.3 (second and third example) is that the user 'could' use safe CURIE but it is not required. On the other hand, the first bulleted item of 5.4.4 says that a URI or CURIE should be expressed as safe CURIE.

- I try to envisage the changes we will have to do on the text if the @vocab mechanism is defined.

I think we can safely assume that some mechanism will be around, which means that the value of @property="bla" will have a clear meaning in terms of a URI if there is a corresponding @vocab doing that for 'bla'.

How would we combine this with the XHTML keyword mechanism we have now? I presume the way of looking at those (ie, 'next', 'stylesheet', and the like) is that, conceptually, we have a @vocab defined for all RDFa content pointing at file defining those values. That would certainly unify things nicely.

However... at the moment those values are defined for @rel/@rev only. Such restriction would not make sense for @vocab in general. One can envisage two mechanisms:

        1. the @vocab format would not only define the URI-s but also the RDFa attributes that can be used for that term. Ie, some are usable for @typedef (ie, class definitions), some for @property, some for all of them. A bit convoluted...
        2. remove the restriction on @rel/@rev. Ie, all CURIE-s, regardless of where they come from, may use the terms coming from a valid @vocab, including the xhtml ones. I know this is not semantically kosher, but I am not sure it is so harmful.

The second alternative has the merit of simplifying the choices. The list of 5.4.4 would become something like:

    - @href and @src support only a URI
    - @about, @resource support a URIorCURIEorVOCABTERM (with an optional safe CURIE syntax)
    - all other attributes support a list of URIorCURIEorVOCABTERM-s (each with an optional safe CURIE syntax)

I believe this is simpler both conceptually and implementation-wise (with an underlying mapping mechanism from terms to URI-s for valid vocab terms)

- A related note which will also come up for RDFa+HTML5. At present, a Wiki page is maintained at the whatwg site on 'valid' @rel values[1]. I am not sure that will be the final mechanism; there are discussions, also related to the LINK HTTP header, on looking at alternative registration mechanisms (see [2]). What I presume this means is that the corresponding RDFa mechanism should be flexible enough to cope with whatever comes up (I believe that what we discussed yesterday does go in this direction). That, however, refers back to the previous point on how we define the @rel/@rev keyword values...

Cheers

Ivan


[1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06





On Jan 13, 2010, at 23:39 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> Sorry for the delay - there were some technical difficulties.  However,
> I have uploaded a very drafty RDFa Syntax 1.1.  You can get to it via
> the drafts page at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts
>
> Thanks!
>
>


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf






smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
Loading...