Julian Reschke wrote: > Acknowledge that there is a problem (CURIE as rel value), and resolve > it, instead of pretending it's not. If there is a problem, I disagree that it is with CURIEs in @rel in XHTML1.1+RDFa. I believe the problem is in trying to interpret a raw link-type string without knowing where it came from. HTML supports @profile, which modifies the meaning of @rel values. @profile="http://bens-crazy-parser.com" could easily process rel="(:dc:)title" into http://purl.org/dc/terms/title. HTML4 effectively has a default @profile, with a number of pre-specified link-types [1]. XHTML1.1+RDFa effectively has a default profile, too, where @rel values are interpreted as CURIEs (into URIs, of course.) In other words, any assumption one is making about generically parsing @rel without its language context is, in my opinion, strongly misguided. @profile can and does alter that interpretation. So if @profile can alter it for HTML4, then certainly the version of HTML has an effect on how @rel is interpreted. You can't interpret @rel blindfolded. As I suggested in a previous email, one simple way to resolve this potential conflict with the link-type RFC is to specify, in the link-type RFC, that while the semantic value of a link-type should be a URI, its syntax may be language-dependent. This shouldn't be controversial, because this is already the case given @profile. -Ben [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-linksReceived on Friday, 27 February 2009 21:56:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 February 2009 21:56:49 GMT