Ben Adida ben at adida.net Sun May 10 15:29:53 PDT 2009:
Julian wrote:
> You are aware of MNot's "Web Linking" draft
>
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05.html>),
> and the fact that it seems to enjoy support from the TAG?
Julian, you continue to bring this up as if we hadn't already discussed
this:
Where and when has it been discussed?
there are significant differences of opinion with mnot on whether
his interpretation of @rel values is correct in prior HTML versions,
He has Requested For Comments, so that can be corrected, no?
and there are a number of folks who disagree (not just us in RDFa),
including at least two RECs (RDFa and GRDDL).
Is this claim based on a mere comparison of the description of those
link relations in said specifications? Perhaps some of the disagreements
are merely a different wording?
The point is: if you assume that @rel="foo" always means the same thing,
then many folks believe you're already violating the HTML spec, which
specifically uses @profile to modulate the meaning of @rel, and
sometimes via another level of indirection.
Where does nottingham draft define anything that contradicts the default
HTML 401 profile? Authors will often assume that rel="foo" does means
the same thing wherever it appears, hence a central register is a
benefit so that specification writers and profile writers can know what
the standard semantics are.
As to modifying semantics, it is probably not wise to profile or specify
semantics that differs from the central register. But having a central
register cannot in itself prevent profiles (default profiles or
linked-in profiles) from defining their own semantics when necessary.
It does by the way seem like an unfortunate mix of semantics and other
issues that HTML 5 does not allow the @rev attribute. Rather, HTML 5
should allow the @rev attribute, but should eventually say that it
hasn't defined any values for it. Thus authors who are linking to a
profile that does define values for @rev could still use @rev without
producing an invalid HTML 5 document.
--
leif halvard silli
