- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:10:19 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- 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>
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. 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, with CURIE syntax, and we ensured that our approach preserved the existing pre-defined link types. I've yet to see a real problem with this rather careful decision, which we made and vetted through the normal W3C process. -Ben
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 23:13:12 UTC