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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:00:50 +0200
Message-ID: <48CA13A2.3090207@gmx.de>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
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>

Shane McCarron wrote:
> 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.  

I think it's safe to say that there isn't consensus about "who owns the 
rel attribute" between the XHTML2 and HTML5 working groups. It would be 
unfortunate if we ended up with different syntax in both languages.

Furthermore note that the lexical space in the HTTP link header draft is 
*URI*, not *IRI*. One could argue that this is a problem HTTP needs to 
solve, but it's worth keeping in mind nevertheless.

> 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?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 07:01:36 GMT

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