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

Re: URIs in @rel and @property...

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:34:58 +0000
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1258378498.19975.14.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
Here's an idea, and it may be a terrible one. That's for you lot to
decide.

In RDFa 1.1, all RDFa-specific attributes (i.e. not @href and @src) may
take either SafeCURIEs or Safe URIs. SafeCURIEs take the form:

	[prefix:suffix]

SafeURIs take the form:

	{absoluteOrRelativeURI}

(Angled brackets are theoretically nicer than curly braces because they
fit better with how URIs are often given in the wild - but they'd need
escaping when serialised, so they're probably not as nice in practise.
More on this later...)

In the case of tokens which are neither a SafeCURIE nor a SafeURI, a
disambiguation method is applied:

	1. If the attrbute is @about or @resource, the token is
	   a URI;

	2. If the attribute is @rel or @rev and on the list of
	   known keywords, it's a keyword.

	3. If the token begins '_:' then it's a bnode.

	4. If the prefix of the token has been declared, or it's
	   the empty prefix, it's a CURIE.

	5. Otherwise it's a URI.

(... More on the curly braces: actually you'll see that in most cases,
people will be able to rely on the disambiguation method rather than use
curly braces. So maybe instead with *should* use angled brackets <>
which look ugly when serialised - precisely to discourage people from
using them, and encourage them instead to rely on the disambiguation
algorithm.)

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 16 November 2009 13:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:33 UTC