W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2008

Re: rel=CURIE in RDFa, but rel=URI in Link:

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:45:19 -0500
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1221158719.6800.387.camel@pav.lan>

"Don't cross the streams... It would be bad."

i.e. are you mixing in an unrelated issue?

On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 19:07 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dan Connolly writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:33 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> >> I was under the impression that the founding fathers meant for Link:  
> >> and <link> to be compatible. We seem to have lost that possibility  
> >> now, due to lack of coordination between groups working independently  
> >> on extensions to HTTP and XHTML.
> >
> > They're still compatible if you consider both CURIEs and
> > URI references as syntactic sugar for URIs.
> 
> But URI refs and CURIEs overlap lexically -- how are you supposed to
> tell whether mailto:robin is a URI reference or a CURIE?

HTTP Link: it's a URI reference, and in RDFa, (I assume, I haven't
looked closely) it's a CURIE.


>   The TAG is
> on record [1] as saying CURIEs should not be deployed in existing
> contexts where URIs are currently specified.
> 
> ht
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0014.html

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 18:44:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:06 GMT