- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:55:45 -0800
- 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). -Ben
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 20:57:28 UTC