- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:32:08 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, 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>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:16:11 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Steven Pemberton wrote: >> ... >> As I said, a CURIE is an appropriate value for a rel in HTML4. In HTML4 >> the rel attribute takes CDATA, and is defined as a space-separated list >> of link types, with no other definition of what a link type is. So a ... > > I'm not sure how this helps. As a consumer of a @rel attribute, I need > to know whether I need to process it as CURIE before comparing it with > known link relation names. I was replying to a comment that said there were different syntaxes in HTML4 and XHTML+RDFa for @rel. What I was saying is that the syntax isn't new: it is allowed by HTML4 already. The RDFa spec just adds how to interpret it. Best wishes, Steven
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 14:32:38 UTC