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: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:05:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4796769C.5050207@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> we don't have a problem with unprefixed
> CURIEs in @about, @property, @datatype, or @resource.

If we have a problem with unprefixed CURIEs in @rel and @rev, why are we
not being consistent and stating that they don't belong in
@about/@property/@datatype and @resource in XHTML+RDFa?

> 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">

This question is one of ignorance... I just don't know what the use case
for this is... why should this be supported? You're going to ask why it
shouldn't be supported, aren't you? :)

I say it shouldn't be supported because it complicates the processing
rules while not having a clear use case. Perhaps, there is one... but I
can't see it. What's a real-world use case for this construct?

-- manu

PS: I also second Shane's reservations that it would make supporting
(copy/paste) into HTML 4 and 5 more difficult if we supported setting
the default mapping using xmlns.

Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Intro to the Semantic Web in 6 minutes (video)
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 23:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC