Re: Link Relation Type Registry for @rel/@rev in RDFa

I actually think this link type registry that they have been discussing 
in the HTTP activity is a bad idea, in that it conflicts with the type 
registry we already have.  I have repeatedly pointed out to that group 
that we are already in this space, and that we have a collection of 
values that at the very least need to be incorporated into their work.

I think that the right thing for them to do is to defer to the value 
collection we have already defined.  That collection is defined using 
RDFa, and is readily extractable / machine readable using rules from a 
W3C Recommendation.  What more do we need to do?

Manu Sporny wrote:
> Going forward, we should consider using the Link Relation Type Registry
> for reserved values for @rel and @rev in RDFa for all HTML family languages:
>
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.html
>
> Issues:
>
> - Parsers shouldn't require hitting the registry to operate correctly -
> should we state that valid values can be found at the LinkType registry
> URL? Developers may hardcode the values in their parsers?
> - Would this unnecessarily/erroneously override HTML4 LinkType values?
>
> -- manu
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Sunday, 10 May 2009 20:58:36 UTC