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

Ben Adida wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Acknowledge that there is a problem (CURIE as rel value), and resolve
>> it, instead of pretending it's not.
> 
> If there is a problem, I disagree that it is with CURIEs in @rel in
> XHTML1.1+RDFa. I believe the problem is in trying to interpret a raw
> link-type string without knowing where it came from.
> 
> HTML supports @profile, which modifies the meaning of @rel values.
> @profile="http://bens-crazy-parser.com" could easily process
> rel="(:dc:)title" into http://purl.org/dc/terms/title. HTML4 effectively
> has a default @profile, with a number of pre-specified link-types [1].
> 
> XHTML1.1+RDFa effectively has a default profile, too, where @rel values
> are interpreted as CURIEs (into URIs, of course.)
> 
> In other words, any assumption one is making about generically parsing
> @rel without its language context is, in my opinion, strongly misguided.
> @profile can and does alter that interpretation. So if @profile can
> alter it for HTML4, then certainly the version of HTML has an effect on
> how @rel is interpreted. You can't interpret @rel blindfolded.

But I'd like to.

WRT profile; I see how this can work for a single profile URI, but it 
does not scale, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to help with mixing 
relations from several profiles (namespaces) in a single document.

> As I suggested in a previous email, one simple way to resolve this
> potential conflict with the link-type RFC is to specify, in the
> link-type RFC, that while the semantic value of a link-type should be a
> URI, its syntax may be language-dependent. This shouldn't be
> controversial, because this is already the case given @profile.
> ...

No, that's fine. What's controversial is how many different 
language-dependent interpretations there should be for the HTML family 
of languages. I think that number needs to be 1.

BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 22:20:02 UTC