On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 16:58 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > If I had a solution that is compatible both with RDFa and full-URIs in > @rel, I would already have proposed it. That's why I've been > complaining for so long: I think the use of CURIEs instead of > safe-CURIEs in @rel is a big problem. (It's ok in new attributes, but > problematic in @rel/rev).
Safe CURIEs are important in @about/@resource because those attributes are primarily intended for URIs. The @rel attribute was not previously used for URIs, so no disambiguation mechanism was needed. Yes, @rel in *Atom* is a URI, but no previous recommendations for HTML or XHTML have recommended URIs in @rel, and the current HTML5 draft doesn't either. Nor am I aware of any widely non-W3C specifications that use URIs in @rel. Google's rel=canonical and rel=nofollow are simple tokens. Pingback uses a simple token, and so do microformats. So I'm not sure where these pre-existing uses of URIs in @rel are supposed to be found. If you're concerned by compatibility between HTML's @rel and Atom's @rel, then don't be. They're completely incompatible. Atom's is not a token separated list at all. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
