W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > September 2008

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

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:17:15 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uiaka1j8smjzpq@acer3010.lan>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:12:21 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

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

Well, it is certainly too late to change, since it has gone through the  
process, and it now being implemented and adopted.

>> 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.

I just meant that the organised coordination channels are the way to do  
it, the more so since other markups are adopting RDFa, and will be party  
to the discussion.

>>> 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.

Actually I never have any problems getting XHTML into IE to speak of, and  
don't really understand the fuss. Even using application/xhtml+xml works  
(see http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-ruby-markup-1.html as an  
example). I know that there are some differences, but in the vast majority  
of deployed pages, with a little forethought you're never going to have  
any major issues.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:18:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:49 GMT