W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2005

RE: CURIEs vs. QNames

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:12:54 -0500
Message-Id: <c7680412d9aee3cbad92471346aa6eb0@w3.org>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

A while back, I saw this and didn't respond. I sorta thought somebody 
else
would challenge it or clarify it in due course, but I don't see 
anything like that:

 > one of my main arguments in favour of CURIEs is that we
 > need a way to abbreviate URIs in a manner that has *already* become
 > established practice via QNames

  -- 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0021

Who is the "we" there? Is this requirement really established?
I don't need a new standardized way to abbreviate URIs.
There's XML base, &entities; (ugh), relative URI references, and even 
local short-hands
that I can transform via XSLT/GRDDL. So whoever "we" is, count me out.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 14:13:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT