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

On 3/1/09 11:25 AM, Ben Adida wrote:
>
> And when HTML5 features are deployed in browsers before they're
> standardized and while many other folks are howling, is the HTML5
> community not happy?
>    

This is a fair point. I don't think anyone should try to stop you.

> Let's stop with the holier-than-thou attitude, please. We're all trying
> to push the web forward, and there's always a delicate balance between
> sticking to the standard and experimenting with new deployments.
>
> If anything, the fact that RDFa is being successfully deployed in HTML
> should make many of your arguments moot, but you continue to fight this
> battle where the only good deployments are the ones that comply with
> your view of the world.
>    

RDFa is being deployed in HTML. It is way too early to call it 
successful. It's certainly not successful to the degree that many HTML5 
features are.


>   @rel has
> always been defined as plain string without meaning. To interpret it as
> a URI is *new*, whether in CURIE form or in plain URI form.
>    

You do realize that browsers are very unlikely to adopt any change that 
requires interpreting @rel this way, right? Maybe that doesn't matter, 
and you're aiming for other user agents.

> Given the way HTML4 is *already* used with @profile and @rel values,
> RDFa's approach doesn't introduce additional cost.
>    

HTML4's @profile attribute doesn't do anything in practice.

Also, it looks like RDFa adds a prefix binding mechanism resembling XML 
Namespaces, QNames in content, and RDF itself. I think it is false to 
claim there is no additional cost here. I've written code that ships in 
Mozilla that deals with XML Namespaces, QNames in content, and markup 
claiming to be RDF.

Let's just say I find it disappointing that the Creative Commons people 
seem to think these things are needed.

- Rob

PS - please stop *bolding* things.

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 18:22:29 UTC