Hi Ivan,
On 05/07/07, Ivan Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then one more clarification, if I may ask: what is the potential conflict with WAI Steven is referring to?
I think it's that if we were to say that @role == rdf:type, then we would force that interpretation onto anyone that uses RDFa. it would mean that the ARIA work from WAI for example, which builds upon @role, would need to either adopt the same meaning as us, or avoid using RDFa in their work (which would be a shame). My argument has always been that something 'playing the role of x', is not the same as 'something being x', and so @role should not represent rdf:type. But that is where we are at now, anyway; the @role spec itself doesn't say that @role == rdf:type, the ARIA schemas no longer say that @role == rdf:type, and now, we also no longer say it in RDFa. So I would suggest that there won't be any *future* conflicts, provided that we don't go adding a meaning for @role that is out of sync with the situation as it stands now. Which means that the only thing we can safely add in the future is the statement that @role == xh:role, which *is* defined in the @role specification, and is also present in the ARIA work. But like I said, I don't see any reason why that work can't wait until a future release of RDFa, if people think we have enough to be getting on with now. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
