Re: Comments on ISSUE-108 (Link relations)

Ivan,

I strongly disagree.  Anyone is free to use any value in @rel at any 
time. There are no restrictions.  HTML5 associates some meaning to some 
values.  Where our value set overlaps with theirs, I am confident that 
our meanings are consistent.  Beyond that, I am confident that our 
values are 1) reasonable and 2) meaningful.  We went through a lot of 
trouble to develop that collection of terms years ago.

If your argument is that we should not put new barewords into @rel, 
then.... I think we are screwed.  With @vocab we can put ANYTHING in 
@rel as a bareword.  HTML5 browsers will not know what those values mean 
in the context of that vocabulary, and there's nothing we can do about that.

On 10/14/2011 3:24 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Having read the minutes of yesterday[1]
>
> I am not sure what justifies the usage of the full XHTML @rel value set for HTML5. Unfortunately, there is a difference in this respect between HTML5 and XHTML 1.1. It is not our job in this working group to override that; I think what we have to do is to accept what others working groups, in their area of expertise, do. That, unfortunately, leads to the fact that the default profile (I am not sure what the final name will be, so I still use this term) for XHTML and for HTML5 should be different.
>
> - The one for XHTML may just do what RDFa 1.0 did, with the possible removal of stylesheet (alternate or not)
> - The one for HTML5 warrants the HTML5 @rel values only (or a subset thereof, to be decided)
>
> Ivan
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-13#ISSUE__2d_108__3a__Refine__2f_deprecate_Link_relations
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120

Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 12:46:29 UTC