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

Is about="[talk:]" a valid CURIE? (was: Re: Firefox RDFa Debugger (Fuzzbot 0.8.4 for Windows/Linux/Mac OS X))

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:19:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4964C7F2.307@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

Ivan Herman wrote:
> a small thing: I am not 100% sure who has the bug, distiller or librdfa,
> but I would vote for the former :-)

You seem to have more faith in my software than I do :).

> Look at http://www.w3.org/2009/Talks/0115-Amsterdam-IH/Overview.html,
> and you will discrepancies between the two. The difference comes from
> the interpretation of that @about=[talk:] value. I interpret this as a
> reference being the empty string, ie, the URI becoming the value
> assigned to 'talk' via a @prefix. You seem to interpret this is fully
> empty, ie, the URI of the file itself...

I've logged it as a bug against librdfa, as we do need clarification and
a test case:


I believe that Mark's and Shane's intention for CURIEs was to make it a
simple string replacement algorithm (guys, please correct me if I'm
wrong)... which would mean that you have a valid point. However, the
RDFa REC currently states that a CURIE is this:

curie :=   [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference

Which, I believe, means that this:


is invalid, even if talk is specified as a valid prefix earlier in the

When implementing librdfa, I tried to follow the specification quite
literally. I think the correct behavior is to interpret about="[talk:]"
as about="". Thoughts?

-- manu

Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.

blog: Fibers are the Future: Scaling Past 100K Concurrent Requests
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 15:19:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:30 UTC