W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:14:33 +0100
Message-ID: <49A849A9.3020204@gmx.de>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> ...
> Then I read the following(I infer that the nested quote is in part from 
> Julian, presumably in a part of the thread that did not make it to 
> www-tag):
> 
> Henri Sivonen writes:
> 
>>> P.S., I realise that this involves at least three additional
>>> communities, but the TAG seems like the logical place for the initial
>>> discussion and eventual coordination of this issue.
>> Since Steven already CCed two of those three and Julian forwarded your 
>> email to the third, I've CCed all three in addition to the TAG here.

Actually, that was Mark Nottingham's email...

> With my TAG chair hat on, this leads me to invite all concerned to think 
> about whether the TAG should do more about this right now.  I will be glad 
> to hear suggestions from anyone involved, including other TAG members, as 
> to what if anything would be constructive for us to undertake more 
> formally.  Otherwise, we'll continue to monitor this thread and contribute 
> as individuals. 

I think it's highly desirable that the TAG gets involved here. I've been 
hoping for this since the issue (of CURIEs in @rel) was brought up by 
Jonathan Rees last September 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Sep/0028.html>).

> Note that the TAG did previously involve ourselves in reviewing drafts of 
> the CURIE specification, and our formal feedback to the working group was 
> given at [1]. Since use of CURIEs is at the core of the current 
> controversy, let me clarify one aspect of the TAG's note [1], the 
> introduction of which reads:
> ...

This contains the following (good) advice:

>   Specifications for particular attribute values or other content MAY be 
> written to allow either CURIEs or IRIs (or URIs, etc.).  The 
> specifications for such languages MUST provide rules for disambiguantion 
> in situations where the same string could be interpreted as either a CURIE 
> or an IRI.  One way to do this is to require that all CURIEs be expressed 
> as safe_CURIEs, implying that all unbracketed strings are to be 
> interpreted directly as IRIs.
> </proposed>

...which, unfortunately, RDFa-in-XHTML does not follow.

Right now, <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/> does include it's own 
copy of CURIE. IMHO, the right thing to do is to put RDFa-syntax on hold 
until CURIE is ready, to update it to be based on the actual CURIE spec, 
and also to revisit those decisions where CURIEs were specified for 
attributes where it can NOT be decided reliably whether the value is a 
CURIE or a URI/IRI.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 20:15:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:32 GMT