W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > September 2010

Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:28:12 +0200
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, public-html-comments@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <20100915212812111213.398864c0@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Nathan, Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:40 +0100:
> Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Just a heads-up. The editor of the HTML5 specification has escalated an
>> issue in the HTML WG that started out as a bug against RDFa in HTML.
>> This concerns the design decision to use prefixes in RDFa as well as the
>> concept of CURIEs:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
>> 
>> The entire bug history can be found here:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
> 
> can somebody point me to a proposed and viable alternative?

ISSUE-41, Decentralized extensibility: 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41

OK, I'm stretching it. But I think that ISSUE-120 has to be seen in 
relationshiop to ISSUE-41. ISSUE-41 has 3 proposals: 
a) drop the whole issue - Ian's route, 
b) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0077.html
   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/extensionslikesvg and 
c) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0076.html
   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/html:xmlns

b) and c) both allows namespaces amd prefixes in HTML, under different 
restrictions. 

a) is not accepted yet, but it will probably accepted in the end.
b) is accepted as proposal by the chairs
c) is a proposal by yours truly - it is not accepted by the chairs yet. 

So I would recommend the RDFa WG to not look blindly at ISSUE-120 but 
to also look at ISSUE-41. 

For my own part, if you find that my proposal, c), is any good, then 
I'd appreciate encouragement to update it. If I don't update it, then I 
expect the chairs to not accept it. (Pew, finally I found a way to ask 
this question ...) I'm happy to drop it, due to time constrain and 
everything ... 

So at the moment, I think the RDFa communityt should consider first of 
all if solution b) could bring to RDFa+HTML what you need and want. (I 
know that  I think solution b) _perhaps_ could represent a 
simplificaiton of the use of prefixes - in HTML. But you really rather 
read and judge for yourself - I perhaps haven't understood it. But you 
will find that it mentions RDFa.
-- 
leif halvard silli
HTMLwg participant
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 19:28:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:05 GMT