Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
*If* we want to support RDFa, why not add the attributes the way they are
already named???
Because the issue is that we don't yet know if we want to support
RDFa. That's the whole point of this thread. Nobody's given a useful
problem statement yet, so we can't evaluate whether there's a problem
we need to solve, or how we should solve it.
For the record: I disagree with that. I have the impression that no
matter how many problems are presented, the answer is going to be: "not
that stone -- fetch me another stone".
Alex's suggestion, while officially against spec, has the benefit of
allowing RDFa supporters to sort out their use cases through
experience. That's the back door into the spec, after all; you don't
If something that is against the spec is acceptable, then it's *much*
easier to just use the already defined attributes. Better breaking the
spec by using new attributes then abusing existing ones.
> ...
BR, Julian
