- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:26:41 -0500
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 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 WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
HI Ben, On Feb 27, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ben Adida wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Right now, <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/> does include it's own >> copy of CURIE. IMHO, the right thing to do is to put RDFa-syntax on >> hold >> until CURIE is ready, > > Let's remember that RDFa is a REC with a number of deployments, so > what > are you asking to "put on hold?" > > I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. I would suggest we > take > a step back and compare the costs here: implementations of RDFa are > working just fine, implementations that do not support RDFa will, at > worst, miss some of the RDFa @rel statements. I think it is important to note here too that any newly coined rel values will also be unrecognized by legacy UAs, so there's nothing unique here about the CURIEs in this respect. Take care, Rob
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 21:29:26 UTC