Re: ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values): RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]

The @rel attribute in HTML is not "old style" so I don't understand
your argument.  It perfectly acceptable, even in HTML5, to use rel to
point to licenses, alternate representations, related content,
authors, etc.  They are link relations (hence, the name @rel).

I believe we shouldn't filter them out at all.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Grant Robertson <> wrote:
> Well, I have been up past my bedtime two nights in a row, reading and
> re-reading all the messages on this issue. It is clear that RDFa 1.1 (both
> Lite and Core) will behave in an unexpected manner in the specific situation
> described. And I laud the valiant efforts of the working group members to
> devise a suitable workaround or modification to the RDFa 1.1 standard that
> will eliminate this issue. However, I now fail to see this issue as a
> "problem" that needs to be "solved."
> Incompatibilities arise all the time when using old, outdated standards with
> new standards or software. Every software or standard development team will
> tell you that there comes a point were infinite backwards compatibility
> cannot reasonably be maintained. I believe RDFa has reached that point.
> Therefore, I propose that the "solution" to the "problem" is to simply state
> the facts in evidence: RDFa 1.1 (both Core and Lite) is incompatible with
> older versions of HTML. I propose the WG simply add text to the RDFa 1.1
> Core and Lite documentation which states, unequivocally, that RDFa 1.1 is
> not compatible with specified older versions of HTML.
> Now, some may say that RDFa 1.1 Lite could be compatible with old HTML but
> this is a bit of a Catch-22. As soon as someone uses the specific feature of
> HTML that is causing the problem (i.e. puts a @rel in the file with one of
> the offending, old-HTML, attribute values), the RDFa in that document is no
> longer RDFa Lite, because it has that @rel in it. All of these attempts to
> filter out the old-style @rel attributes will just clutter up the standard
> far too much.
> If someone wants to use an older version of HTML, then I say A) they are
> unlikely to be interested in RDFa and B) they can just accept that they will
> have to use an older version of RDFa. Plain and simple. If someone wants to
> use RDFa 1.1 in their web documents, then I say they should "get with the
> program" and use a current version of HTML.
> Further, I say we let the RDFa processor developers figure out their own
> means of determining whether a document is non-conforming, older HTML or
> compatible, newer XHTML or HTML5 or whatever. There is no need for the RDFa
> WG to solve every problem that may surround the use of this standard. The
> WGs job is to design the standard to be as useable and powerful as possible
> for current HTML-Family standards. Everything else is gravy, as they say.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker
>> []
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:45 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values): RDFa Lite and non-RDFa
>> @rel values [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]
>> ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values): RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel
>> values [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]
>> Raised by: Stéphane Corlosquet
>> On product: RDFa 1.1 in HTML5
>> See Stéphane's mail:
>> also Ivan's first reply:
>> The proposed changes:
>> Option #1: ignore @rel if it only includes HTML Link types as
>> defined at
>> Option #2: ignore @rel if it does not include any explicit CURIE.

--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 Friday, 27 April 2012 03:18:59 UTC