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

should SVG 1.2T extensible metadata attributes be of type CURIE?

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:58:02 -0400
Message-Id: <F0125F5D-2CF2-477C-AE24-944307244CC1@ieee.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>

Reference:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0052.html

** in a word: no

The most crisp reason is a matter of short-term
concern and language-lawyering technicalities.

SVG 1.2 Tiny needs to progress rapidly up the rest of the
Rec track.  Their implementation experience is in the bag;
this Last Call was to double check the repair of a few
substantive problems from the previous CR version.

CURIEs are about to enter CR; they are unlikely to catch and
pass SVG 1.2T in maturity grade.  So SVG 1.2T can't stand
a normative dependency on CURIEs.

Even over the long term, SVG should probably view things
like @class and @rel/rev as derived from text/html and not
from XHTML per se.  Thus the answer only gets to a 'maybe.'

The CURIE spec itself warns against using CURIEs as the
datatype in attributes with a pre-existing practice of
plain-text token use.

And 'no' for now is the only safe choice.

Al
Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 19:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 October 2008 19:58:50 GMT