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

Re: HTML+RDFa Issues (update)

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:55:44 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1247158545.6412.18.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:58 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> If I had a solution that is compatible both with RDFa and full-URIs in
> @rel, I would already have proposed it. That's why I've been
> complaining for so long: I think the use of CURIEs instead of
> safe-CURIEs in @rel is a big problem. (It's ok in new attributes, but
> problematic in @rel/rev).

Safe CURIEs are important in @about/@resource because those attributes
are primarily intended for URIs. The @rel attribute was not previously
used for URIs, so no disambiguation mechanism was needed.

Yes, @rel in *Atom* is a URI, but no previous recommendations for HTML
or XHTML have recommended URIs in @rel, and the current HTML5 draft
doesn't either. Nor am I aware of any widely non-W3C specifications that
use URIs in @rel. Google's rel=canonical and rel=nofollow are simple
tokens. Pingback uses a simple token, and so do microformats. So I'm not
sure where these pre-existing uses of URIs in @rel are supposed to be

If you're concerned by compatibility between HTML's @rel and Atom's
@rel, then don't be. They're completely incompatible. Atom's is not a
token separated list at all.

Toby A Inkster
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 16:56:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:32 UTC