Re: discussion of QNames in content in RDFa documents?

Note that RDFa does not use QNames.  It uses "compact URIs" which are 
defined in the RDFa syntax document itself.  Your comment is still 
valid, and I think it is a good idea to add some text to address these 
concerns - just wanted to be sure everyone knows that we are not using 
QNames in attribute values.

Dan Connolly wrote:
> The TAG finding on QNames doesn't come right out
> and say "don't use them in attribute values and content"
> but it enumerates a bunch of problems when you do...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html
>
> It seems worthwhile for the RDFa specs to say
> something along the lines of "yes, we know QNames in
> attribute values don't work well with canonicalization
> nor CSS selectors, but we think it's worth doing anyway."
>
> i.e. anticipate criticism such as this rather than deal
> with it as a last call comment or some such...
>
> "As it is based on the  
> (horrid, imo) concept of qnames in content two equivalent (not identical)  
> documents can't necessarily be styled using the same binding because the  
> Selectors language and the DOM have no support for qnames in content."
>  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0520.html
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com