- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:37:20 +0100
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- 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>
Steven Pemberton wrote: > 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. Doesn't compute. If recipients need to change, then you have introduced a new notation/syntax/whateveryouwannacallit. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 14:38:05 UTC