Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

RE: domain distinction between @role and @class is unenforceably vague [was: Re: p in address tag?]

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:22:07 -0500
To: "'Al Gilman'" <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00bb01c5e61b$4b344770$6601a8c0@bosshog>

Al Gilman wrote:
> *summary:
> 
> Use of @role is indicated when we can, in RDF, say pretty clearly
> what we want a processor to know about an element instance.  Because
> use of @class won't deliver a payload of connotations with anything
> like the same   
> reliability.
> 
> It is a second-generation, better-engineered venture into the same
> semantic space. Refining what is known about the current element
> instance. Not a fork into a new semantic space.  

<snip>

> The property "suitable for use in transmission through the postal
> services" is appropriate to add to an <address> element by using the
> @role attribute.  

Well, I'm glad I'm getting @role (I hope)

> 
> The real difference between @role and @class is not semantic: what it
> can mean; but computational: how you can computationally learn about
> what it means. @class gives you opaque tokens. There is no good
> Web-wide practice for associating such tokens with machinable, and
> clearly delimited, knowledge (roughly bundles of assertions). @role
> gives you something that can be expanded into a URI. RDF gives you a
> Web-standard way to associate assertions with this URI. So this is a
> chain of Web-standard "communicative gestures" that allow us to
> clearly import a known cluster of assertions to a current element
> instance.     

Except, after starting down this road, I stepped back a bit to
re-examine what I was thinking.  While @role is great because of it's
extensibility through RDF, was it not also originally envisioned as a
support to ACCESS, although it could be applied to any element?  My
original understanding was that it was identifying a conceptual block of
information, such as "banner" or "contentinfo", as much spatially as
conceptually, providing yet another method of traversing a document,
using semantic understanding.

But what I originally thought for ADDRESS is not so much block
information per se, but rather granular information within a block.
Perhaps it is more meta information than I originally surmised, so would
not the property attribute would be more appropriate?

Which makes more sense here:

	<address role="author">John Foliot</address>
	<address role="company">WATS.ca</address>
	<address role="city_state">Ottawa, ON</address>
	<address role="country">Canada</address>
	<address role="email">foliot@wats.ca</address>
	<address role="website">http://www.wats.ca</address >

or
	
	<address property="author">John Foliot</address>
	<address property="company">WATS.ca</address>
	<address property="city_state">Ottawa, ON</address>
	<address property="country">Canada</address>
	<address property="email">foliot@wats.ca</address>
	<address property="website">http://www.wats.ca</address >

(ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-metaAttributes.html#sec_23.3 .)

(Note, this discussion did start with the lament of needing <br /> or
<p> within the ADDRESS element for visual layout as much as anything
else)
    
> 
> See the discussions in the "RDF in HTML Task Force" list on
> "semantics of @role" for more on this. 
> 
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Oct/threa 
d.html#0
> 

Al, in your response on this thread you stated:

> In other words, we want a provenance-pruned import of assertions
> about the referenced node a.k.a. URI. This doesn't have to be true of
> all uses of xhtml2:role but it's not clear the community will accept
> anything which depends on a "read no further" decision being reached
> based on what is at the far end of the URI (reference) which is the
> expanded value of the QName value of the @role attribute.
> 
> This is the controlled-vocabulary side of our needs. We need to be
> able to use controlled names in a way that the simpleminded syntax
> processor in the client knows it's a controlled term and doesn't have
> to get into RDF processing to figure that out.

Exactly! Do we really need this much for something as innocuous as
ADDRESS?  I believe that a controlled vocabulary should be created to
use with ADDRESS, but could it not (should it not) be a Meta Type
Vocabulary instead?

(Asking the question, don't know the answer...)

JF
--
John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca    
Phone: 1-613-482-7053  
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2005 17:22:20 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.