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

Ben Adida wrote:
> 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.

I think what matters more is the end date, not the start date.

> 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,

Nope. A URI is a string, and in HTML4, you detect link relations simply 
by string comparison.

> with CURIE syntax, and we ensured that our approach preserved the
> existing pre-defined link types.

The fact that a link relation can use a string that conforms to the URI 
syntax doesn't change the way how link relations are compared.

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

The real problem is - again - that for a relation value of "foo:bar", 
recipients do not know anymore what to do (or they'll have to ignore 
RFDa and just continue to do a string comparison).

BR, Julian