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

Re: Telecon Agenda - Tuesday, October 4th, 2005 - 1400 UTC

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:50:27 +0200
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.sx4a2d1vsmjzpq@r600.lan>

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:18:04 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> wrote:

> 2) CURI and backwards compatibility:
>
> This is an issue we haven't fully discussed. We should discuss it. CURIs  
> may present backwards-compatibility issue with respect to REL="next" and  
> the like from previous versions of HTML. We need to be conscious of  
> these issues and to work through them.

Anything we do here will not work on old software.

	<link rel="next" href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/thingy"/>

works just as well in the old and new versions, but the purely new stuff:

	<link rel="next" href=":htmlwg:thingy"/>

will only work on new software. On the other hand, trying to dereference  
the new stuff in old software should at least generate some sort of error  
message (even if it is just a 404).

At the Hypertext coordination meeting last week, they were asking how we  
can go about making CURIs more generally usable across W3C. They agreed to  
talk about it more at the next call.
Minuted at the first section of http://www.w3.org/2005/09/30-hcg-minutes

By the way we still have to agree on a format for a CURI, either:

	href=":htmlwg:thingy"
or
	href="[htmlwg:thingy]"

and for bnodes:

	href=":_:a"
or
	href="[_:a]"

I like the colon version, since it suggests a missing scheme, but I can  
live with either.

Steven
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 10:50:37 GMT

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