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: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:31:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4C911F29.6070406@aptest.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: nathan@webr3.org, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, public-html-comments@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
  I actually think ISSUE-41 is completely orthogonal to the direction 
RDFa is going.  RDFa Core defines @prefix and effectively deprecates 
xmlns.  We don't care about namespaces.  We never did.  We just needed a 
way to map one string to another for shorthand vocabulary terms that are 
easily dereferenced on the web.

On 9/15/2010 2:28 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 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.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 19:32:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:26 UTC