- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:20:20 +0200
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > ... >> and there are a number of folks who disagree (not just us in RDFa), >> including at least two RECs (RDFa and GRDDL). > > Is this claim based on a mere comparison of the description of those > link relations in said specifications? Perhaps some of the disagreements > are merely a different wording? > ... As a matter of fact I don't see RDFa using @profile. >> The point is: if you assume that @rel="foo" always means the same thing, >> then many folks believe you're already violating the HTML spec, which >> specifically uses @profile to modulate the meaning of @rel, and >> sometimes via another level of indirection. > > Where does nottingham draft define anything that contradicts the default > HTML 401 profile? Authors will often assume that rel="foo" does means > the same thing wherever it appears, hence a central register is a > benefit so that specification writers and profile writers can know what > the standard semantics are. The Web Linking draft does not override anything in HTML 4.01. It just states that generic link relations are a good idea, creates an IANA registry for them, and defines how to use them in the HTTP Link header. That being said I *do* believe that it's an incredibly bad idea on using the same relation name for different things. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 07:20:20 UTC