W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [Fwd: Using XMLNS in link/@rel]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:10:03 +0100
Message-ID: <49A7D81B.9090103@gmx.de>
To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, www-tag@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Phil Archer wrote:
> I understand the problem here. It would be nice to be able to use the 
> same @rel syntax in both HTTP Link:, HTML 4 and XHTML Link elements. But 

...and HTML 5 link elements...

> you can't:  HTTP and HTML 4 have no way to define a namespace. XHTML 
> does, of course, and that's where the RDFa comes in. So I wonder whether 
> this is really 'all that bad?'

But link relations do not need namespaces, they need URIs. That's why 
they are CURIEs in RDFa, right?

> ...
> So although sloppiness may lead some people to put cc:morePermissions in 
> an HTTP Link: header, it's clearly incorrect. Whereas 
> rel="http://creativecommons.org/ns#morePermissions" is fine for everyone.

Is it in RDFa? (Only when mapping the prefix "http" to "http:", right?)

> Link: can't support Curies - but it doesn't have to. RDFa isn't going to 
> change, but it doesn't have to either. HTML doesn't support namespaces 
> and so shouldn't be using Curies anyway. If people do, it may lead to 
> unexpected results. C'est la guerre mes amis.
> Or am I missing the elephant in the room here? (not unknown I know...)

If there would always be a clear separation between HTML (4/5) and 
XHTML, that would be correct.

However, it's common practice to serve XHTML as text/html. And then 
there's also HTML 5 served as application/xhtml+xml, with no way to 
distinguish that fron XHTML+RDFa.

 > ...

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 12:10:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:04 UTC