Re: capturing reserved keywords in @rel

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Everyone knows what they would _like_ to do with these values -- I've
> heard "ignore them" plenty of times now. :) So all we need is some
> "spec-ready text" that might achieve this.

Mark, I don't think you should be the only arbiter of what is
spec-ready. What bothers me about this discussion is how it is becoming
over-complicated for something that should be quite simple, and the
complications are simply not justified.

>   * saying that @rel and @rev hold 'safe CURIEs'

This is a *major* *change* that you're proposing, and you're trying to
reopen an issue we all closed months ago. As chair, I have to say no:
there's no justification for this major change and issue reopening.

>   * or, saying that a CURIE actually doesn't have an empty prefix
>     version, and so "DC.Creator" is simply not a CURIE, and so is
>     ignored (I don't like this approach because it means our CURIE
>     rules will be different to those in @role and @access).

Where do @role and @access come up? Are they existing HTML attributes? I
don't think they are for XHTML1.1+RDFa. Let me know if I'm mistaken, but
as far as I can tell they are separate modules, and thus not the concern
of this task force.

This is actually the solution I would prefer by a wide margin: to have a
 no-prefix CURIE variant of CURIEs, where non-prefixed version have no
resolution. That's clearly what we need to ensure proper processing of
HTML, and it's quite easy to define.

-Ben