W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2008

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

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:03:57 -0500
Message-ID: <48C979AD.1040904@aptest.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: 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>

FWIW, RDFa is part of the XHTML 2 activity, and DOES own link/@rel.  We 
believe that the extension of @rel to use CURIE is completely consistent 
with the HTTP spec HTTP Link: space. The value space for CURIE is IRI.  
The lexical space doesn't really matter in this context - since any 
processor looking at link / @rel would need the value space version.  
What am I missing here?

Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> ...
>> HTTP Link: it's a URI reference, and in RDFa, (I assume, I haven't
>> looked closely) it's a CURIE.
>> ...
>
> But RDFa talks about link/@rel, which RDFa doesn't own. If HTML5 later 
> on decides to allow URIs in link/@rel (and I think I've seen several 
> proposals that go into that direction), then we have another conflict 
> between the RFDa community and the WHATWG crowd.
>
> This one could be easily avoided by requiring a safe CURIE.
>
> BR, Julian

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 20:05:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:06 GMT