Julian Reschke wrote: > Right now, <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/> does include it's own > copy of CURIE. IMHO, the right thing to do is to put RDFa-syntax on hold > until CURIE is ready,
Let's remember that RDFa is a REC with a number of deployments, so what are you asking to "put on hold?" I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. I would suggest we take a step back and compare the costs here: implementations of RDFa are working just fine, implementations that do not support RDFa will, at worst, miss some of the RDFa @rel statements. A change at this point, which would be a *major change* in a REC, would cause significant pain to folks who have begun to widely deploy RDFa. Meanwhile, I don't think there's a significant problem with having language-specific syntax expansions for @rel, since we all agree that semantically they're URIs (except when they're link-types). -Ben
