- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:16:46 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, www-tag@w3.org, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:09:46 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Ben Adida wrote: >> I think that's what Steven means when he says we added a way to >> interpret the @rel syntax without actually changing it, because there >> *no* syntax specified other than CDATA. Julian Reschke wrote: > And that's what is incorrect. *Because* the syntax is a plain string > it's an incompatible change to define a new syntax here. Keep in mind > that "foo:bar" already was a syntactically legal relation value before. Without a formally ascribed meaning. RDFa now formally ascribes meaning to it if you choose. Just like microformats ascribes meaning to some class values. Best wishes, Steven
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 12:18:47 UTC