Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values [Final Take?]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Gregg Kellogg <> wrote:
> The thing is that @rel remains a valid RDFa 1.1 property (not RDFa 1.1 Lite conformant, but a conforming processor MUST process @rel). Adding a rule, specifically for HTML+RDFa 1.1 (which includes both HTML5 and XHTML5), that removes these "junk" link relations from consideration solves the problem for the typical junk link relation terms.

As specified, I fail to see how the current HTML+RDFa 1.1 document
indicates any handling of documents served with the media type
application/xhtml+xml.  If all you have is the content-type header and
the XML (XHTML) document, how exactly do you choose between XHTML+RDFa
1.1 and HTML+RDFa 1.1 ?  If that was well-defined and rational to use,
that would go a long way in making this easier to use.

--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 21:50:56 UTC