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

Re: HTML+RDFa Issues (update)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:58:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4A5605A1.8080708@gmx.de>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Manu Sporny wrote:
> What is the worst thing that could happen, as far as you are concerned,
> if a consumer saw/stored both "urn:rights" and
> "urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a", verbatim? What is the
> damage done to the Web if the practice becomes widespread?

With "urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a" there is no problem 
-- it looks like a full URI and it is.

With "urn:rights" there is the problem that the consumer gets the wrong 
URI, and furthermore there's a real risk that it could get the same 
string from a different party, trying to identify a *different* link 
relation.

> Also, what is in your set of acceptable solutions to the issue -
> assuming that we adopt Sam's "SHOULD avoid well known URI schemes"
> language, and ensuring that there is backwards compatability for RDFa?
> Similarly, what is your ideal solution?

If I had a solution that is compatible both with RDFa and full-URIs in 
@rel, I would already have proposed it. That's why I've been complaining 
for so long: I think the use of CURIEs instead of safe-CURIEs in @rel is 
a big problem. (It's ok in new attributes, but problematic in @rel/rev).

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 14:59:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 July 2009 14:59:25 GMT