Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
...
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?
...
As a matter of fact I don't see RDFa using @profile.
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.
The Web Linking draft does not override anything in HTML 4.01. It just
states that generic link relations are a good idea, creates an IANA
registry for them, and defines how to use them in the HTTP Link header.
That being said I *do* believe that it's an incredibly bad idea on using
the same relation name for different things.
...
BR, Julian
