- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:09:46 +0100
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, 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>
Ben Adida wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> If recipients need to change, then you have introduced a new >> notation/syntax/whateveryouwannacallit. > > Recipients only need to change if they lent @rel a > syntax/meaning/whateveryouwannacallit beyond the spec. If you assumed > @rel in HTML or XHTML was a URI, you went beyond the spec. Again, the assumption, if any, is that the @rel value alone identifies the relation. Whether it uses URI syntax or not is totally irrelevant. > RDFa specifically ensured that existing *specified* interpretations of > @rel were preserved, i.e. link types. And RDFa specifically ensured that > the list of link types could be extended in the future without > interfering with our use of @rel including prefixed values which, > according to the spec, you should have simply ignored as local values. Where does the spec say that? Didn't you claim that presence of a @profile can license interpretation of unregistered rel values? > 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. 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. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 12:10:37 UTC