Re: non-prefixed @rel

should rel/rev use safe CURIE syntax?
can rel/rev use an absolute URI?

Manu,

instanceof is completely new, there's no specification telling us of 
allowed values as is the case in XHTML. Therefore, I don't think Ben's 
proposal applies to instanceof.

-Elias

Manu Sporny wrote:
> Ben Adida wrote:
>> Ben's Non-Prefixed @rel Proposal
>>
>> rel="X"
>>
>>   - if X is a XHTML 1.1 reserved value, it is re-written in a
>> pre-processing stage as rel="xh:X", where xh maps to
>> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#.
>>
>>   - if X is a prefixed value, it is processed normally.
>>
>>   - if X is a non-prefixed, non-reserved value, it is ignored by any
>> baseline RDFa parser, though other conformant parsers may choose to
>> generate a triple *outside* of the default graph, as per [RDFa Parser
>> Conformance].
>>
>> The same rules apply to each value in a space-separated set of values for X.
>>
>> The same rules apply to @rev, which has the same backwards compatibility
>> issues as @rel.
>>
>> For consistency, the same rules apply to @property and @instanceof.
>> ========
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Definitely like the new non-prefixed @rel proposal, especially the
> orthogonality to @property.
> 
> Just to be clear, are these the XHTML 1.1 reserved values[1]?:
> 
> alternate, stylesheet, start, next, prev, contents, index, glossary,
> copyright, chapter, section, subsection, appendix, help and bookmark
> 
> How does this work for @instanceof? I thought we could only have RDF
> classes in @instanceof? In other words, would the following be valid?
> 
> <span about="#foo" instanceof="copyright">
>    <a rel="help" href="#ccsa3">Creative Commons Share Alike 3.0</a>
> </span>
> 
> Would it generate the following triples?:
> 
> <#foo> rdf:type xh:copyright;
>        xh:help <#ccsa3>;
> 
> -- manu
> 
> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes
>