W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 7670] Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:12:27 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nx3L1-0001qW-1t@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670





--- Comment #48 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  2010-03-31 19:12:26 ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> > Would any version of RDFa that uses a prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary
> > URLs then combined with other strings to form a URL be acceptable to you.
> 
> I'm not aware of any proposal that does the above that I consider simple enough
> for broad Web deployment, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I do not
> wish to be obtuse; nor is this bug intended to be an obstinate roadblock. I
> truly am open to other ideas, I just think that, as described in the original
> bug description and in comment 44, the current mechanism is too complicated.

Just for the record: "too complicated" is subjective; there are many people who
don't think at all this is too complicated.

That being said: it is one level of indirection, and I don't believe that
replacing it with a different-looking but similar level of indirection would be
helpful; it just would cause more confusion.

As far as I understand, RDFa is going to allow URIs where previously CURIEs
were required. So it would be *possible* to write RDFa without this kind of
indirections. Why not just recommend that notation to authors who can't deal
with prefixes?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 19:12:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 March 2010 19:12:29 GMT