Re: HTML+RDFa Issues (update)

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