W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

RE: [RDFa] ISSUE-55: CURIEs or QNames in XHTML1.1+RDFa

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:16:10 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201211B9F@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Ben,
 
> Mark proposed that we use the same approach: build into our 
> specification a grammar for what we expect these values to 
> look like, without having to reference an outside specification.
>
> After a few days of thinking about this, I agree with this 
> solution. We are basically doing exactly what SPARQL did. 
> Neither they nor we are trying to define a reusable concept. 
> It's too bad that we can't get together and actually *define* 
> this concept, but we need to worry about RDFa right now, and 
> that's the way to solve it.
> 
> Any thoughts, complaints, objections, please send.

That's exactly what I was asking and advocating in the first place.

I absolutely agree with defining right what we need for RDFa
and I never really got it how the whole discussion drifted away
into TAGish shallows. Again: Let's do it the SPARQL-way, maybe
some other specs will follow doing the same, and in some 5 years
time, maybe, a CURIE-like, global spec will emerge ;)

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
---------------------------------------------------------- 
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 19:16:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT