- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:12:27 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670 --- Comment #48 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2010-03-31 19:12:26 --- (In reply to comment #47) > > Would any version of RDFa that uses a prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary > > URLs then combined with other strings to form a URL be acceptable to you. > > I'm not aware of any proposal that does the above that I consider simple enough > for broad Web deployment, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I do not > wish to be obtuse; nor is this bug intended to be an obstinate roadblock. I > truly am open to other ideas, I just think that, as described in the original > bug description and in comment 44, the current mechanism is too complicated. Just for the record: "too complicated" is subjective; there are many people who don't think at all this is too complicated. That being said: it is one level of indirection, and I don't believe that replacing it with a different-looking but similar level of indirection would be helpful; it just would cause more confusion. As far as I understand, RDFa is going to allow URIs where previously CURIEs were required. So it would be *possible* to write RDFa without this kind of indirections. Why not just recommend that notation to authors who can't deal with prefixes? -- 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 Wednesday, 31 March 2010 19:12:28 UTC