- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:33:45 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> No, I'm not concerned about the difference to Atom. What I'm concerned >> with is the difference to RDFa-less XHTML and HTML. > Oh! Wow. Well, in that case NOTHING we could ever do would satisfy > your concern, right? I mean any interpretation of @rel is by definition > different than what HTML 4 / XHTML 1 / XHTML 1.1 wold have said. They > don't permit any interpretation at all outside of the pre-defined @rel > values (which RDFa continues to support for that very reason). Or > rather, they don't permit the interpretation outside of minting some > @profile value and therefore interpreting the values in @rel as ANYTHING. > > Am I missing something here? Nothing, except that the requirement to qualify new values with @profile both was ignored by almost everybody (including RDFa!), and also doesn't work in practice (as it doesn't help with disambiguation). BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 17:34:28 UTC