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

On Mar 4, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Ben Adida wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> If you have an interest in deploying it more widely, perhaps it would
>> make sense to design for wider deployment instead of designing for  
>> XML
>> only.
> And as you know, we are very much exploring the @prefix route  
> *because*
> we're interested in HTML deployment. You've read me say this a dozen
> times, so your arguments are now bordering on disingenuous. We're
> looking into it, we're working on it, we're discussing with you and
> others; I'm not going to have this argument again.

Before, you said that you're not trying to push an RDFa designed for  
XML only into HTML as a done deal. But your comments here and  
elsewhere sure make it seem that way. Earlier you described Henri's  
proposals as "change for the sake of change" and referred to "an HTML  
world view which is empirically incorrect". These do not seem like the  
hallmarks of being open to feedback and change.

I'm not saying that you have to automatically agree with Henri's  
comments. But a comparison of the technical merits of using @profile  
vs. backing off of CURIEs would be more constructive than your current  
approach, where you seem to be rejecting anything but your preferred  
approach out of hand.


Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 00:32:14 UTC