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

http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#In_General

"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"

....

http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#XMDP_Profile

"   <dt>entry-title</dt>
   <dd>
    The concept of atom:title inside of an atom:entry from
    <a 
href="http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php">The 
Atom Syndication Format</a>,
    constrained and modified as per the <a 
href="http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom">hAtom microformat spec</a>.
   </dd>
"
 
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: 
http://rdfa.info/wiki/Best-practice-standard-prefix-names

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
http://weborganics.co.uk/
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 02:13:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 August 2009 02:13:40 GMT