W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [Fwd: Using XMLNS in link/@rel]

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:34:56 -0600
Message-ID: <49A7B3C0.2040803@aptest.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
FWIW I have already sent an initial response to Mark and the TAG.  Ben, 
feel free to send something more cogent - I am pretty tired ;-)

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Ben,
> Can you respond to Mark?
> Dan
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Using XMLNS in link/@rel
> Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:16:31 +0000
> Resent-From: www-tag@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:15:45 +1100
> From: Mark Nottingham <    >
> To: www-tag@w3.org WG <www-tag@w3.org>
> Creative Commons just released a new spec:
>   http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Ccplus
> that has markup in this form:
>   <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
> rel="cc:morePermissions" href="#agreement">below</a>
> (in HTML4, one assumes, since they don't specify XHTML, and this is
> what the vast majority of users will presume).
> However, it appears that they adopted this practice from RDFa;
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues
> which, in turn, *does* rely upon XHTML. However, XHTML does *not*
> specify the @rel value as a QName (or CURIE, as RDFa assumes);
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/abstraction.html#dt_LinkTypes 
> "Note that in a future version of this specification, the Working
> Group expects to evolve this type from a simple name to a Qualified
> Name (QName)."
> So, that's an expectation, not a current specification.
> Of course, this conflicts with the Link draft;
>  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04.txt
> which we've worked pretty hard to come to consensus on across a broad
> selection of communities (Atom, POWDER, OAuth, HTTP, and
> optimistically, HTML5).
> A few observations and questions;
> 1) I'm more than happy to specify in the Link that in XHTML, a link
> rel value is indeed a QName, if XHTML chooses to take that position
> (although I believe a URI is a better fit than a QName here, as in
> most other places). Can we get a current reading from the XHTML world
> on this?
> 2) However, it seems like RDFa is jumping the gun by assuming @rel is
> a CURIE right now. This is not promoting interoperablity or shared
> architecture, because no XHTML processor that isn't aware of RDFa can
> properly identify these link relations. My preference would be an
> erratum to RDFa removing this syntax, replacing them with a self-
> contained identifier (i.e. a URI). Thoughts?
> 3) CC's adoption of *proposed* XHTML conventions from RDFa into HTML4
> via CURIEs further muddies the waters; xmlns has no meaning whatsoever
> in HTML4, so they're promoting bad practice there by circumventing the
> specified Profile mechanism. I find this aspect of this the most
> concerning, and it needs clarification (more colourful words come to
> mind, but I'll leave it there for now).
> Thanks,
> P.S., I realise that this involves at least three additional
> communities, but the TAG seems like the logical place for the initial
> discussion and eventual coordination of this issue.
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 09:36:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:30 UTC