Re: rel=CURIE in RDFa, but rel=URI in Link:

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>> I think it's an issue that needs to be discussed and resolved anyway.
> 
> Well, as Shane suggests, that's what the hypertext coordination group 
> (HCG) is there for. As Shane pointed out RDFa has gone through the W3C 
> process, which includes announcing last call to the HCG, and making sure 
> that groups register interest in commenting.

Understood.

In this case, I think this is a problem that was missed during last call.

Does that mean there's no way to change it, and HTML5 needs to either 
adopt it or use a different notation?

> ...
> Well, RDFa is being implemented as we speak too. At least RDFa followed 
> process and made sure that we had agreement on features before 
> implementing them. Ignoring W3C process and then saying "it's 
> implemented already, we can't change it now" is a guaranteed way to 
> create this sort of problem.
> ...

I'm not going to defend the way the HTML WG does its work, as I happen 
to agree with this one. The issue is that that point of view doesn't 
help fixing the problem.

>> Which is great. I think that getting RDFa to work well in HTML4 is 
>> very important; I'm personally looking forward to get HTML4 documents 
>> including RDFa to successfully validate (even if I need to provide a 
>> different doctype).
> 
> In the meantime you can use the XHTML+RDFa doctype to get it to validate.

Understood, but not really helpful.

I personally like XHTML and use it everywhere where compatibility with 
IE is a non-issue (such as an intermediate format, or when I really 
don't care about IE users). But in the real world, people are stuck with 
HTML, and thus it would be good to have a convincing RDFa-in-HTML story. 
That would also help driving the HTML5 discussion.

BR, Julian