- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:18:37 -0800
- To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi all, I've been tracing the issue of non-prefixed, reserved-word values for @rel, and, from what I've found, there's certainly a thread that justifies Manu and Mark's memory, and where I contradict myself. That said, we then all approve the test cases in December, so we have all contradicted ourselves :) The history is: - a thread on 10 October where Ivan, Elias, Manu, and Shane seem to be in agreement (or at least to not express an issue) with a proposal I phrased that rel="next" yield a triple through something like pre-processing. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0082.html (the issue in that thread seems to be about what happens to @property) - a thread on 11 October, where Mark initially points out a problem for CC if we don't support rel="next", then in another email proposes that we switch to ":next", and Manu agrees, and I agree. We leave open the possibility that parsers will generate something for rel="next". Shane disagrees strongly. I disagree strongly with Shane. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0106.html - test cases 61 and 62, which we all approved on December 13th http://www.w3.org/2007/12/13-rdfa-minutes.html and which specifically test for rel="next" and rel="prev", and we all approve it. So, it appears we don't have a resolution. In other words, this issue is still open. I'm going to spend some time thinking about what my take on this is. My initial feeling is: re-reading the 11-October thread, I am surprised by my own endorsement of ":next". As Creative Commons rep, I should never have supported the proposal that rel=":next", since that does indeed make things very difficult for Creative Commons, as per Mark's comment! On the plus side, it seems the issue isn't that I didn't record the resolution... it's that we didn't have one: the discussion was preempted by the more important chaining discussion, and then the holidays. -Ben
Received on Saturday, 12 January 2008 02:18:45 UTC