- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:16:39 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Shane, I noticed that you didn't reply to this email. We discussed this topic shortly on yesterday's HTML5 telco. From what I hear it seems your position is that either: 1) It's ok for XHTML2 and HTML5 to define conflicting syntax rules for @rel (and potentially @rev). 2) It *is* a problem, so HTML5 will need to adapt to what RDFa defines. Re 1: that would be a problem; it will make conversion of documents and document fragments much harder, and will create an inconsistency in the DOM. Re 2: I doubt that this is going to fly, but if you think this would be the right thing, please raise this point over in the HTML WG. BR, Julian PS: please note that I'm generally in *favor* of the RDFa approach, and I would like it to be fully adopted in HTML5 (and extensions to HTML4, btw). I just see a problem with introducing plain (non-safe) CURIEs in a place where others already want to use URIs. Julian Reschke wrote: > > Shane McCarron wrote: >> FWIW, RDFa is part of the XHTML 2 activity, and DOES own link/@rel. >> We believe that the extension of @rel to use CURIE is completely >> consistent with the HTTP spec HTTP Link: space. The value space for >> CURIE is IRI. > > I think it's safe to say that there isn't consensus about "who owns the > rel attribute" between the XHTML2 and HTML5 working groups. It would be > unfortunate if we ended up with different syntax in both languages. > > Furthermore note that the lexical space in the HTTP link header draft is > *URI*, not *IRI*. One could argue that this is a problem HTTP needs to > solve, but it's worth keeping in mind nevertheless. > >> The lexical space doesn't really matter in this context - since any >> processor looking at link / @rel would need the value space version. >> What am I missing here? > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 26 September 2008 08:17:25 UTC