Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

Julian Reschke wrote:
> I think it would be easier to convince them if you wouldn't have
> unilaterally changed the semantics for the rel attribute (note that I
> have less problems with CURIEs in *new* attributes).

Well, for one, the RDFa task force is a joint effort of the Semantic Web
Deployment *and* the XHTML2 WGs, which was previously the HTML WG. Our
work began before the HTML5 group had anything to do with W3C. So I
don't think we did anything rogue or unilateral.

Also, I think you're missing an important detail: @rel had *no*
semantics, it was all free-form, without any recommended interpretation
(except for pre-defined link types). So even interpreting it as a URI
involves "adding semantics." We added the URI semantic interpretation,
with CURIE syntax, and we ensured that our approach preserved the
existing pre-defined link types.

I've yet to see a real problem with this rather careful decision, which
we made and vetted through the normal W3C process.

-Ben