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

Re: HTML+RDFa Issues (update)

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:25:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4A55FDDD.3080108@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
>> The technical issue is that it is theoretically possible to construct
>> a rel value which has a list of URIs which could be accidentally
>> interpreted as a list of CURIEs.  Consider the following:
>>
>> <a xmlns:urn="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
>>    rel="urn:rights urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a"
>>    href="http://example.com/terms_of_service.html" >
>>
>> My take: while it is possible to construct such examples, in practice
>> they would be rare enough to not be an issue.  That being said, it is
>> nearly impossible to legislate against, as it would require people to
>> avoid declaring namespaces prefix that matches any current or future
>> URI scheme.  Perhaps a "SHOULD avoid well known URI schemes" might be
>> in order.
> 
> That would deal with collisions; but not with the fact that existing,
> non-RDFa consumers, will not expect that an indirection mechanism has
> been added.

Julian, assume that we adopt the language the Sam has specified above.

Why would existing non-RDFa consumers need to know or care? Does it
create any sort of technical issue with pre-existing HTML consumers that
we know about? Wouldn't existing consumers merely ignore the CURIE
values or do nothing with them? Which current HTML parser or toolchain
implementation are we concerned about affecting?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 14:26:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 July 2009 14:26:14 GMT