Mark, I am sorry, I do not have the time to go into details now, I have to run to a telco in a few minutes. And I am out tomorrow. So a quick comment: Mark Birbeck wrote: > Also, since the arguments for not allowing @href apply also to @rel > and @rev, then only allowing @href/@rel/@rev on clickable link > elements ('a' and 'area') means we lose bnode support, so again, we > need to decide whether we lose bnode support in RDFa more generally, > or just in the HTML use of RDFa. > > (Unless we're seriously considering the 'display: none' proposal.) > I do not understand why you use this argument; please don't. The same, shall we say, social arguments that were used for @href do *not* apply to @rel and @rev. Nobody claimed that we should not use those attributes; as a consequence, we do *not* loose bnode support. The display:none trick was used when an extra @rev was used for a bnode, which is not the same (and, actually, it is not a 'proposal', it is a perfectly legitimate usage of RDFa...) Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:04 GMT