This actually raises an interesting point I was agonizing over just yesterday. Can someone explain to me *why* there is any value at all in permitting a safe_curie in @resource, @about, etc? If the only value is "the resulting source file is shorter" I don't find that compelling. I understand why I want to use CURIEs to scope identifiers in @rel, @rev, etc. I get that they can be deferenced into nifty RDF magic. But I don't see that making sense for @about or @resource. I must be missing something. Ivan Herman wrote: > I have spent some time in the past few days in adding RDFa to various > files, and I have realized that one of the recurring mistakes I did > was the protected curie vs URI-s. Ie, if I type in, say, a @resource > value, I'd put in a CURIE and I'd regularly forget to put the CURIE > into a '[' and ']' pair. Fortunately, my implementation has a flag to > generate warnings, and one of the warnings I added was when a value is > not protected, but does not begin with the usual 'http:', 'mailto:', > etc. It turned out to be very useful.... > > The reason I say all that: it is probably worth emphasizing this > several times in the various documents. Of course, it is mentioned in, > say, the CURIE processing session in the syntax document, but maybe > more emphasis would be helpful... And we should probably draw > attention on this in tutorials and other places where we present RDFa... > > Of course, it may be only me... > > Ivan > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.comReceived on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 16:45:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2008 16:45:51 GMT