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

Rob Sayre writes:

> On 3/1/09 1:45 PM, Dan Brickley quoted the HTML 5 draf spec:
> 
> > "Custom data attributes  are intended to store custom data private
> > to  the page or application, for which there are no more appropriate
> > attributes or elements.  These attributes are not intended for use
> > by software that is  independent of the site that uses the
> > attributes."
> 
> Do you mean it won't work technically, or that it would be using the
> attributes in a way that's unintended? RDFa already uses XML
> Namespaces  and HTML in ways that those specifications don't cover.
> What's different  about my example?

If you're prepared to violate a spec, what's the advantage of an
attribute called data-rdfa-foo over simply rdfa-foo?

The former is trampling over a feature designed for a different purpose;
the latter is minting a brand new attribute that's all your own to play
with, which seems cleaner.

An apparent advantage of the data- prefix would be that you can trick
automated validators into lying to you and telling you that your source
is valid.  But it wouldn't be.  And I don't see how being able to lie to
yourself is an advantage.

> However, unlike XMLNS, we could change the HTML5 text.

Sure.  But if we want to change the HTML 5 text to support RDFA, we can
simply do that by adding in RDFA-specific attributes.

Smylers