W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2009

[whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:32:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4A0DB547.7040009@digitalbazaar.com>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Reversed domains aren't *meant* to link to anything.  They shouldn't
> be parsed at all.  They're a uniquifier so that multiple vocabularies
> can use the same terms without clashing or ambiguity.  The Microdata
> proposal also allows normal urls, but they are similarly nothing more
> than a uniquifier.
> 
> CURIEs, at least theoretically, *rely* on the prefix lookup.  After
> all, how else can you tell that a given relation is really the same
> as, say, foaf:name?  If the domain isn't available, the data will be
> parsed incorrectly.  That's why link rot is an issue.

Where in the CURIE spec does it state or imply that if a domain isn't
available, that the resulting parsed data will be invalid?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/04/04/collaborative-music-model/
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 11:32:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:49 UTC