- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:45:12 -0500
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> There does seem to be at least one problem of RDFa that is not obviously
> resolved via predefined namespace prefixes, namely that it applies
> namespace prefix resolution to attribute values, resulting in what are
> effectively "QNames in content" (really CURIEs not QNames, but many of
> the same issues arise).
People keep asserting that "the same issues arise", but I've been unable
to extract exactly which of those technical issues apply to RDFa CURIEs?
So, I'd like to revisit this - blank slate - can somebody list all of
the issues with "QNames in content" that apply to RDFa?
I've been able to find this in a TAG finding at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-01-06.html
"""
Specifications that use QNames to represent {URI, local-name} pairs
SHOULD NOT allow both forms in attribute values or element content where
they would be indistinguishable.
"""
We do have a strong technical response to the TAG guidance above, so are
there other technical hazards that apply to RDFa regarding "QNames in
content"?
-- manu
--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.2 Launched - The Legal P2P Music Network
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/11/30/bitmunk-3-2-launched/
Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 03:45:39 UTC