W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2009

[whatwg] Helping people seaching for content filtered by license

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 01:45:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4A07672B.7060408@malform.no>
Ben Adida ben at adida.net  Sun May 10 15:29:53 PDT 2009:
> Julian wrote:
> > You are aware of MNot's "Web Linking" draft
> > 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.html>),
> > and the fact that it seems to enjoy support from the TAG?
>
> Julian, you continue to bring this up as if we hadn't already discussed
> this:

Where and when has it been discussed?

> there are significant differences of opinion with mnot on whether
> his interpretation of @rel values is correct in prior HTML versions, 

He has Requested For Comments, so that can be corrected, no?

> and  there are a number of folks who disagree (not just us in RDFa),
> including at least two RECs (RDFa and GRDDL).

Is this claim based on a mere comparison of the description of those 
link relations in said specifications? Perhaps some of the disagreements 
are merely a different wording?

> The point is: if you assume that @rel="foo" always means the same thing,
> then many folks believe you're already violating the HTML spec, which
> specifically uses @profile to modulate the meaning of @rel, and
> sometimes via another level of indirection.

Where does nottingham draft define anything that contradicts the default 
HTML 401 profile?  Authors will often assume that rel="foo" does means 
the same thing wherever it appears, hence a central register is a 
benefit so that specification writers and profile writers can know what 
the standard semantics are.

As to modifying semantics, it is probably not wise to profile or specify 
semantics that differs from the central register. But having a central 
register cannot in itself prevent profiles (default profiles or 
linked-in profiles) from defining their own semantics when necessary.

It does by the way seem like an unfortunate mix of semantics and other 
issues that HTML 5 does not allow the @rev attribute. Rather, HTML 5 
should allow the @rev attribute, but should eventually say that it 
hasn't defined any values for it. Thus authors who are linking to a 
profile that does define values for @rev could still use @rev without 
producing an invalid HTML 5 document.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 10 May 2009 16:45:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:49 UTC