Yeah - that was my point. The only thing that would NOT match is, predictably, the one thing I wanted to match. rel="TERM", where term is from the HTML4 / XHTML vocabulary. But that ship has sailed I guess. For the record, I *hate* that we have lost the ability to do the simple thing that RDFa was initially devised to do. Create RDF triples using SIMPLE constructs from the initial context. I am forced to define all sorts of nonsense and NOT use RDFa Lite if I want to have simple @rel values. End of rant. On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> >> >> I suspect my implementation should either not issue a warning for >> link+rel, or should check whether it is an RDFa usage pattern, ie, whether >> the value of href is a CURIE or a URI. Probably the latter. Wait... using >> link with a URI is also a legitimate usage pattern! Ie, only CURIE-s are to >> be flagged I guess... >> >> > Where a CURIE is either a safe-curie or a thing that matches the > production for a CURIE *and* the scheme used is pre-declared? Or declared > in the initial context? > > > I guess all of the above...:-( > > Ivan > > > > > -- > Shane P. McCarron > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. > > -- Shane P. McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2013 20:00:31 UTC