W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Why bound prefixes are an anti-pattern in language design

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:12:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4A7B8D9D.8040607@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> I wrote:
>> for example:
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom-faq#Why_does_hAtom_use_class_names_with_prefixes
> Those are not indirection-based bound prefixes. They are just identifiers 
> that happen to have a common beginning. That's a completely different 
> kettle of fish.
No I don't agree, hatom is a special case in microformats because it has 
an implied logical model that rides along side the physical model


"The Atom Syndication Format provides the conceptual basis for this 
microformat, with the following caveats:

    * Atom provides a lot more functionality than we need for a "blog 
post" microformat, so we've taken the minimal number of elements needed.
    * the "logical" model of hAtom is that of Atom. If there is a 
conflict, Atom should be taken as correct.
    * the "physical" model of hAtom -- the actual writing of elements -- 
is a lot more varied than Atom provides for, due to the variety of ways 
weblogs are actually produced in the wild. The hAtom microformat 
provides a number of rules for "bridging the gap"



"   <dt>entry-title</dt>
    The concept of atom:title inside of an atom:entry from
Atom Syndication Format</a>,
    constrained and modified as per the <a 
href="http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom">hAtom microformat spec</a>.
I dont think that just because the xmdp profile isn't referenced 
anywhere doesnt mean that entry-title is atom:title implied no mater how 
much you say it isn't.

> If we dropped the xmlns:foaf="..." bit and just defined that foaf:Person 
> was a FOAF person and you could never change the "foaf:" part, I wouldn't 
> be complaining. The problem is that you _can_ change the "foaf:" part.
RDFa to my knowledge has never promoted anything other than using well 
known and well used prefixes see: 

so in theory that wouldn't happen much. the reason being that even if 
someone did some bad copy and paste then a parser could store some well 
known prefixes such as the ones listed on that page[1] and match them up.

Best Wishes

Martin McEvoy
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 02:13:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:32 UTC