- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:59:15 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > ... > The other model that was considered was that @rel contains a URI. In > this case @rel="next" is actually a relative path, and we would > hard-code the fact that it's relative to a 'base' that is the XHTML > vocabulary. Unfortunately that puts @rel="foo" also into the XHTML > vocabulary, and it also means that for authors to add their own values > they need to express them as full URIs, which is quite laborious and > error-prone. > ... For the record: I'm still VERY unhappy with the fact that RDFa imposes a syntax on the rel attribute that is likely to be incompatible with the way it's used elsewhere (sticking plain URIs into it). Requiring CURIEs for *new* attributes is fine, but imposing a potentially non-backwards compatible syntax onto existing attributes is an entirely different story... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 12:00:03 UTC