- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:03:57 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- 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>
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. 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? Julian Reschke wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: >> ... >> HTTP Link: it's a URI reference, and in RDFa, (I assume, I haven't >> looked closely) it's a CURIE. >> ... > > But RDFa talks about link/@rel, which RDFa doesn't own. 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. > > This one could be easily avoided by requiring a safe CURIE. > > BR, Julian -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 20:05:21 UTC