W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

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

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:01:51 -0800
Message-ID: <49AAB16F.8090008@adida.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Likely it's not too
> bad, owing to the bad state of @rel in HTML anyway, but it has
> effectively created one more thing to sniff in HTML -- "what rel
> convention is in use here?" -- with all of the ambiguity and issues that
> entails.

My last email explained why this is factually wrong. Did you miss it?

RDFa did not add anything more to sniff in HTML: you're assuming that
(@profile, @rel) is all you need to determine @rel, and I'm pretty sure
that's incorrect.

Take GRDDL, which is a REC, and which can be implemented as an HTML4
@profile. (And which was led by Dan Connolly, whom I trust to know what
@profile means.) To make sense of @rel in GRDDL, you're instructed to
look at <link rel="transformation" href="specificTransformation.xsl">,
which itself tells you *how* to interpret @rel.

What is the difference between this level of indirection and that of RDFa's?

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 16:02:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:44 UTC