- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:10:03 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, 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>
Phil Archer wrote: > I understand the problem here. It would be nice to be able to use the > same @rel syntax in both HTTP Link:, HTML 4 and XHTML Link elements. But ...and HTML 5 link elements... > you can't: HTTP and HTML 4 have no way to define a namespace. XHTML > does, of course, and that's where the RDFa comes in. So I wonder whether > this is really 'all that bad?' But link relations do not need namespaces, they need URIs. That's why they are CURIEs in RDFa, right? > ... > So although sloppiness may lead some people to put cc:morePermissions in > an HTTP Link: header, it's clearly incorrect. Whereas > rel="http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions" is fine for everyone. Is it in RDFa? (Only when mapping the prefix "http" to "http:", right?) > Link: can't support Curies - but it doesn't have to. RDFa isn't going to > change, but it doesn't have to either. HTML doesn't support namespaces > and so shouldn't be using Curies anyway. If people do, it may lead to > unexpected results. C'est la guerre mes amis. > > Or am I missing the elephant in the room here? (not unknown I know...) If there would always be a clear separation between HTML (4/5) and XHTML, that would be correct. However, it's common practice to serve XHTML as text/html. And then there's also HTML 5 served as application/xhtml+xml, with no way to distinguish that fron XHTML+RDFa. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 12:10:53 UTC