- From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:08:41 +0100
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
> It's ugly and not necessary, it will also confuse web authors.
OK, the leading equals is dropped from my proposal.
> prefix="http://microformats.org/vocab# http://vocabs-r-us.org/vocab#"
>
> The example above defines two documents that both contain unprefixed
> reserved values. We wouldn't know which prefix to use in this case.
Well, yes, the disadvantage of my proposal is that there can only be
a single unprefixed vocabulary. However, that particular cloud has a
silver lining: it eliminates the prospect of collisions between
multiple vocabularies.
Of course, two different vocabs could be mixed like this:
<body prefix="http://microformats.org/vocab#">
<div typeof="hcard">
...
</div>
<div typeof="hfoo" prefix="http://vocabs-r-us.org/vocab#">
...
</div>
</body>
Another advantage of mine is that I could choose to use, say Dublin
Core or FOAF as my unprefixed vocabulary, but if you wanted to do the
same under your proposed scheme, you'd have to wait for the DCMI
organisation or Dan Brickley to add a bunch of "xhv:reserved" triples
to their RDF schemas, which they may or may not be willing to do.
So to summarise, my proposal compared to yours/Shane's:
disadvantages :-
* can't mix and match unprefixed vocabs.
advantages :-
* can still mix and match vocabs, but must give all but one of
them a CURIE prefix, or use prefix="" attributes scattered
throughout the DOM tree.
* does not require parsers to download external files
- saves bandwidth
- saves time
- allows off-line use
- simplifies parsers (they don't need to speak HTTP)
* avoids vocab collisions.
* can be used with existing RDF vocabs such as FOAF, Dublin
Core, SIOC, DOAP, etc without requiring their maintainers to
modify their schemas.
* can be used with non-dereferencable vocab URIs (e.g. URNs)
--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 16:09:56 UTC