- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:50:22 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:33 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Not sure who to tell about this now, but it does seem to bear on our
> discussion of CURIE/URI confusion.
>
> Quoth http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues :
>
> @rel a whitespace separated list of CURIEs, used for expressing
> relationships between two resources ('predicates' in RDF terminology);
>
> Quoth http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-
> header-02.txt :
> Link = "Link" ":" #("<" URI-Reference ">" *( ";" link-param ) )
> link-param = ( ( "rel" "=" relationship ) | ...
> relationship = URI-Reference | ...
> I was under the impression that the founding fathers meant for Link:
> and <link> to be compatible. We seem to have lost that possibility
> now, due to lack of coordination between groups working independently
> on extensions to HTTP and XHTML.
They're still compatible if you consider both CURIEs and
URI references as syntactic sugar for URIs.
Meanwhile, there's another definition of rel= values in HTML5
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#linkTypes
in particular, note:
5.11.3.20. Other link types
Other than the types defined above, only types defined as extensions in
the WHATWG Wiki RelExtensions page may be used with the rel attribute on
link, a, and area elements.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#other0
The HTML WG hasn't decided whether to go with that or do something
else; the issue is in our low-priority "RAISED" pile...
@rel value ownership, registry consideration
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 14:49:26 UTC