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

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:55:45 -0800
Message-ID: <49A85351.5020407@adida.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Right now, <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/> does include it's own
> copy of CURIE. IMHO, the right thing to do is to put RDFa-syntax on hold
> until CURIE is ready,

Let's remember that RDFa is a REC with a number of deployments, so what
are you asking to "put on hold?"

I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. I would suggest we take
a step back and compare the costs here: implementations of RDFa are
working just fine, implementations that do not support RDFa will, at
worst, miss some of the RDFa @rel statements. A change at this point,
which would be a *major change* in a REC, would cause significant pain
to folks who have begun to widely deploy RDFa.

Meanwhile, I don't think there's a significant problem with having
language-specific syntax expansions for @rel, since we all agree that
semantically they're URIs (except when they're link-types).

Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 20:57:28 UTC

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