- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:07:50 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ian@hixie.ch
--- Comment #6 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2009-09-18 17:07:50 ---
> Prefix-based lookup is similar in complexity to
> the classname / element name based lookup used in CSS.
CSS selector indirection is already pretty confusing to a lot of authors, but
it has three advantages that don't apply to RDFa: errors don't cause bad data
to be generated, selectors can be written by trial and error without the use of
tools beyond a browser, and it's not a rebindable prefix mechanism.
> Sure. RDF/XML
Not in use in any sort of wide scale, and equally bad.
> N3
Not in use in any sort of measurable scale.
> Office Open XML
Not hand-authored.
> URIs (IRIs etc)
Doesn't use a rebindable prefix mechanism.
> RSS
Not in use in a way that uses a rebindable prefix mechanism.
> ATOM
Not in use in a way that uses a rebindable prefix mechanism.
> Java, JavaScript, PHP, Perl.
Doesn't use rebindable prefixes that are combined with a second string to form
a third string whose value matters in a way that it could be constructed in any
arbitrary other ways.
> I think the prefixing that RDFa relies upon is an essential part of
> the technology
Then I think we should not have the technology.
> and that the users of RDFa seem to have no trouble grokking
> that part of it
I think that the HTMLWG should be designing technologies for orders of
magnitude more usage than RDFa current has.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 17:08:02 UTC