W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [Fwd: Using XMLNS in link/@rel]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:37:20 +0100
Message-ID: <49ABEF20.5070004@gmx.de>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, www-tag@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Steven Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:16:11 +0100, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Steven Pemberton wrote:
>>> ...
>>> As I said, a CURIE is an appropriate value for a rel in HTML4. In 
>>> HTML4 the rel attribute takes CDATA, and is defined as a 
>>> space-separated list of link types, with no other definition of what 
>>> a link type is. So a ...
>>
>> I'm not sure how this helps. As a consumer of a @rel attribute, I need 
>> to know whether I need to process it as CURIE before comparing it with 
>> known link relation names.
> 
> I was replying to a comment that said there were different syntaxes in 
> HTML4 and XHTML+RDFa for @rel. What I was saying is that the syntax 
> isn't new: it is allowed by HTML4 already. The RDFa spec just adds how 
> to interpret it.

Doesn't compute.

If recipients need to change, then you have introduced a new 
notation/syntax/whateveryouwannacallit.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 14:38:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT