Re: HTML+RDFa Issues (update)

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