W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > February 2009

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:39:57 +0100
Message-ID: <49A976ED.3020302@gmx.de>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ben Adida wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The registry doesn't/cannot change prior specs which specify that
>>> @profile affects the value of @rel.
>>> ...
>> Again: @profile does not help with disambiguation when multiple profiles
>> are declared. It just does not work, so pretending it does isn't helpful.
> 
> Assuming this is true, that disambiguation is not possible, what does it
> matter? The point is that @profile *must* be considered by your parser
> looking at @rel, so you can't just compare @rel values. Even if @profile
> is imperfect, it's part of the spec and you can't ignore it.

It would be useful to not only consider what @profile may have been 
intended to do years ago, but what it actually *can* do in practice. 
(That would also be useful with respect to the discussion in the HTML 5 WG.)

If I follow your argument, no new relation names can be used in HTML 4, 
except by using a profile. We have evidence that this is not true. For 
instance, consider rel="nofollow".

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2009 17:40:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:53 GMT