W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Review Comments for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-05

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:17:07 +0100
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890904170517u2fca2790o9d1fbb8c0365ff22@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Why can an XML namespace be an information resource

Because Webarch explicitly says so.

> and a link relation can not?

Well it can't be if you also want to use it as an RDF property. The
@xmlns use of a URI is different from the use of a URI when you put it
in your browser or when you use it in RDF. Similarly, yes, the Link
header specification could do something like what @xmlns is doing.

But in that case, it won't be compatible with RDF.

(You'd have to choose, one or the other.)

> I'd rather have this specification not go near this whole discussion

That'd be fine by me, and I'd be happy with reversed domain names
which are anyway incompatible with RDF. But you raised RDF
compatibility in response, and I'm just pointing out that if this is
to be so then such compatibility should be done carefully and
thoroughly.

There may be other ways to avoid the hornets' nests, of course. But
the specification should at least be clear about whatever it allows.

> Can you cite a document that states that an RDF property is not an
> Information Resource?

Sure: Webarch, ยง 2.2.

Kindest regards,

-- 
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 12:24:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:21 GMT