W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:10:19 -0800
Message-ID: <49A872DB.8040207@adida.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> I think it would be easier to convince them if you wouldn't have
> unilaterally changed the semantics for the rel attribute (note that I
> have less problems with CURIEs in *new* attributes).

Well, for one, the RDFa task force is a joint effort of the Semantic Web
Deployment *and* the XHTML2 WGs, which was previously the HTML WG. Our
work began before the HTML5 group had anything to do with W3C. So I
don't think we did anything rogue or unilateral.

Also, I think you're missing an important detail: @rel had *no*
semantics, it was all free-form, without any recommended interpretation
(except for pre-defined link types). So even interpreting it as a URI
involves "adding semantics." We added the URI semantic interpretation,
with CURIE syntax, and we ensured that our approach preserved the
existing pre-defined link types.

I've yet to see a real problem with this rather careful decision, which
we made and vetted through the normal W3C process.

-Ben
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 23:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC