- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:36:45 +0300
- To: www-tag@w3.org
> If HTML5 later on decides to allow URIs in link/@rel (and I think > I've seen several > proposals that go into that direction), then we have another conflict > between the RFDa community and the WHATWG crowd. HTML5, as currently drafted, already allows URIs in link/@rel to the same extent @xmlns takes a URI. That is, using a URI as a rel token is allowed (if the extension designer registers it on the wiki), but the token is compared as a string--not as a URI. > This one could be easily avoided by requiring a safe CURIE. Or by dropping CURIEs and using fully spelled out absolute URIs instead. Doing this would avoid the problems related to relying on the namespace mapping scope from a different layer. The TAG has already found qnames-in-content problematic but said that "It is simply not practical to suggest that this usage should be forbidden on architectural grounds." However, not being able to forbid pre-existing usage doesn't mean that it is a good idea to introduce new usage (CURIEs) with the same problems. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 08:37:29 UTC