W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

status of non-prefixed values in @rel

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:18:37 -0800
Message-ID: <4788237D.80400@adida.net>
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Hi all,

I've been tracing the issue of non-prefixed, reserved-word values for
@rel, and, from what I've found, there's certainly a thread that
justifies Manu and Mark's memory, and where I contradict myself. That
said, we then all approve the test cases in December, so we have all
contradicted ourselves :)


The history is:

- a thread on 10 October where Ivan, Elias, Manu, and Shane seem to be
in agreement (or at least to not express an issue) with a proposal I
phrased that rel="next" yield a triple through something like
pre-processing.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0082.html

 (the issue in that thread seems to be about what happens to @property)


- a thread on 11 October, where Mark initially points out a problem for
CC if we don't support rel="next", then in another email proposes that
we switch to ":next", and Manu agrees, and I agree. We leave open the
possibility that parsers will generate something for rel="next". Shane
disagrees strongly. I disagree strongly with Shane.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0106.html


- test cases 61 and 62, which we all approved on December 13th

http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-rdfa-minutes.html

and which specifically test for rel="next" and rel="prev", and we all
approve it.


So, it appears we don't have a resolution.
In other words, this issue is still open.

I'm going to spend some time thinking about what my take on this is. My
initial feeling is: re-reading the 11-October thread, I am surprised by
my own endorsement of ":next". As Creative Commons rep, I should never
have supported the proposal that rel=":next", since that does indeed
make things very difficult for Creative Commons, as per Mark's comment!

On the plus side, it seems the issue isn't that I didn't record the
resolution... it's that we didn't have one: the discussion was preempted
by the more important chaining discussion, and then the holidays.


-Ben
Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 02:18:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 January 2008 02:18:48 GMT