W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Exact wording for non-prefixed CURIEs in @rel/@rev

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:00:49 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300801221400m5875384en92004baf8de19185@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Shane,

XML namespaces are broken from a drag-and-drop perspective anyway,
that's well established. So you don't need to use ":blah" to cause
that problem -- any XML namespace prefix will do it.

And although you might not like the look of ":blah", I have found that
in some experiments that I have done using SKOS and RDFa, it's
actually quite a convenient construct.

But what the heck...it's not going to break anything one way or the
other, so whatever the vote says is fine by me.

Regards,

Mark



On 22/01/2008, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > This means that you don't need to put any specific text elsewhere
> > about what to process and what to ignore, since we're saying that
> > there are no longer _any_ prefixed CURIEs. (Which, as I say, requires
> > that some other process 'saves' the important values from being
> > ignored, by prefixing them.)
> >
> >
> I think you mean no longer _any_ non-prefixed CURIEs.
> > Anyway, I don't see why we'd want -- or need -- to remove ":blah". And
> > actually, thinking about it, we could change the mapping for the empty
> > prefix to be the current default mapping rather than XHTML-vocab,
> > which would fulfill my use-cases:
> >
> >   <div about="[:blah]" xmlns="http://xyz">
> >
> How loudly can I say "ewwwww" ?
>
> I really really don't want the default @xmlns namespace to influence how
> CURIEs are transformed.  It would mean that any give CURIE could resolve
> to a different URI just by dragging it to some other segment of a
> document.  It would potentially break the whole drag-and-drop model that
> some people think is the future of the web (not me, you understand.  I
> think it is nonsense).
> > And we might as well change the empty prefix from XHTML-vocab (since
> > no-one needs to write ":next" anymore) to the current default mapping.
> I would rather just get rid of the empty prefix in the XHTML+RDFa host
> language.  We don't need it for anything.  And if we permit it, and let
> it mutate throughout the document, it would mean that it would be that
> much harder to support an HTML 4 or HTML 5 mapping where there is no xmlns.
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 22:01:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2008 22:01:04 GMT