Ivan Herman wrote: > Personally, I always regarded the @prefix solution as being conceptually > equivalent to @xmlns which also means that I would have the possibility > to add a @prefix on any element (thereby defining the prefix for that > part of the subtree). (This may also be a help in the cut-and-paste > issue that you referred to in your discussion with Henri and Ian.) Using > the <meta> element for the same purpose would either (a) restrict its > usage to where that element can be used in the current HTML spec, ie, > the header or (b) extending the content model of HTML to include <meta> > anywhere. In my view, (a) would seriously reduce the usability of prefix > definition; (b) would lead to much more work for HTML parsers, that is > why the RDFa group (in spite of its initial designs...) decided to keep > strictly to attributes. Having @prefix as an attribute that is in "Common" and available on all elements is a requirement. I think that what Manu was driving at was an alternate way to declare prefixes in the head. This is something that has been discussed many times as a convenience method. I think it is a fine additional mechanism for defining the base collection of prefix mappings for a document. You could of course override these inline using @prefix of @xmlns. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.comReceived on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 13:54:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 January 2009 13:54:10 GMT