W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Modularity objection to PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-61

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:00:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4D2E78CD.3020506@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 01/04/2011 11:06 AM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> Javascript already has a dangerous global namespace which
> developers of libraries have learned to almost completely avoid.
> typically each library adds just one term to that global symbol space.
> 
> We already have similar problems with CSS classes in 
> javascript libraries -- there are dangers of clashes between classes 
> added by different libraries. 
> 
> Ideally, any local names have javascript scope. This is why 
> foafname = foaf('name')  is safe, and why 
> foadname = $rdf.resolve("foaf:name") is not.

Hi Tim,

I believe that Nathan has replied to your concerns regarding ISSUE-61 here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0033.html

and here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0032.html

To elaborate a bit further, perhaps we should put text that makes it
clear that library/extension developers SHOULD NOT modify the CURIE
mappings in the RDF Environment as they are intended for the
end-developer to use in a specific page/application environment. This
text should also go in the RDFa specification for the
document.data.setMapping() call.

We would request this for the same reasons that JavaScript library
developers are advised to not replace core object methods for standard
objects like Date and String via the prototype interface - it would most
likely lead to unpredictable behavior.

As Nathan said, we suggest that library developers use the
rdf.createProfile() method and store their library's profile separately
from the RDF Environment to take advantage of CURIEs in their library code:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/#widl-RDFEnvironment-createProfile

Would adding something to the effect of the "SHOULD NOT" text above
alleviate your concerns? If so, do you have any other objections to
closing ISSUE-61 via the following proposal?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0015.html

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Linked Data in JSON
http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/10/30/json-ld/
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 04:00:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT