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

Re: ISSUE-103: substantive issue that requires opinion + discussion

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:56:13 -0500
Message-ID: <483C210D.4080108@aptest.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>



Manu Sporny wrote:
> Ben Adida wrote:
>   
>> ISSUE-103: a URI-centric approach to CURIEs
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/103
>>     
>
> That being said, it's no big deal if we decide to adopt Jonathan's
> proposal. I could go either way, but would like us to not unnecessarily
> generate more work for everyone. If we were to make the change, we'd
> have to make a sweep through the test cases, syntax document, primer,
> and notify all implementers of the change, which could easily put us
> back a month.
>
>   
Actually, I think it is a huge deal and buys us nothing.  The CURIE spec 
is in last call, and we cannot diverge from that.  We have no such 
comment against the CURIE spec.  If we did, I am confident we would 
reject it because, as we all agree, a CURIE is not a new URI mechanism.  
CURIEs are never used over the wire, so they do not need to have their 
own scheme.  As to future-proofing.... it is already future proof.  The 
only situation where a bracket will ever be a legal character in a URI 
is in the hostname portion (for IPv6 addresses).  And a hostname cannot 
be there without a scheme... so there cannot ever be a conflict.  I do 
not think this is anything we need to worry about.  We have bigger fish 
to fry.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 14:57:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 May 2008 14:57:06 GMT