- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:45:03 +0100
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> I think it would be easier to convince them if you wouldn't have >> unilaterally changed the semantics for the rel attribute (note that I >> have less problems with CURIEs in *new* attributes). > > Well, for one, the RDFa task force is a joint effort of the Semantic Web > Deployment *and* the XHTML2 WGs, which was previously the HTML WG. Our > work began before the HTML5 group had anything to do with W3C. So I > don't think we did anything rogue or unilateral. I think what matters more is the end date, not the start date. > Also, I think you're missing an important detail: @rel had *no* > semantics, it was all free-form, without any recommended interpretation > (except for pre-defined link types). So even interpreting it as a URI > involves "adding semantics." We added the URI semantic interpretation, Nope. A URI is a string, and in HTML4, you detect link relations simply by string comparison. > with CURIE syntax, and we ensured that our approach preserved the > existing pre-defined link types. The fact that a link relation can use a string that conforms to the URI syntax doesn't change the way how link relations are compared. > I've yet to see a real problem with this rather careful decision, which > we made and vetted through the normal W3C process. The real problem is - again - that for a relation value of "foo:bar", recipients do not know anymore what to do (or they'll have to ignore RFDa and just continue to do a string comparison). BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2009 15:45:49 UTC