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

Re: CURIEs vs. QNames

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:21:52 -0500
To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <87fypgbxwv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> was heard to say:
| What if I want to express multiple Dublin Core properties in my page?
| Do I really need to write the Dublin Core URI multiple times?

That would work. I'd prefer to simply allow

  <dc:creator>Norman Walsh</dc:creator>

to appear in the HTML, but I guess that's a non-starter because of
legacy browser behavior.

| Do I
| really need to start using XSLT just so I can define URI
| abbreviations? Or should I simply violate the TAG's recommendation
| that QNames not be used as URI abbreviations,

Yes. That's what everyone else does, that's what everyone expects.
Doing something else is going to be more confusing.

| and then be stuck with
| a mostly-working-but-not-quite-complete abbreviation scheme?

Yes.

| I certainly understand the worries about the specific syntax that
| will be used for CURIEs, and the task force is actively discussing
| various options right now. However, I don't understand this reaction
| to the CURIE concept.

Conceptually, I think it's going to be confusing to introduce another
syntax for something that can almost always be represented as a QName
without introducing a new syntax. Syntactically, I think overloading
the QName syntax is just plain wrong.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 15:40:42 GMT

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