RE: ISSUE-76: If we fixed namespaces, does RDFa still have problems?

Indeed.

One of the key ideas in my namespace proposal is that prefixes that are likely to be used widely and are subject to a name clash must be registered. This allows everyone to use the same prefix while knowing that it can only mean one thing.

The "x-" prefix is only used for prefixes that have not been registered, either because they are experimental, or intended only for use within a single organization. End users should use "x-" prefixes rarely, if at all, and a validator should warn if they are being used.

I used "apple" because I was replying to Maciej, but I admit that it wasn't the best example :-)

-Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toby Inkster [mailto:tai@g5n.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:32 PM
> To: Ennals, Robert
> Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-76: If we fixed namespaces, does RDFa still have
> problems?
> 
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 18:46 +0000, Ennals, Robert wrote:
> > Then the value of @property is just “x-apple:whatever”. A tool that
> > wanted to understand a page semantically could either risk the danger
> > of name clashes and assume that “x-apple” means what it thinks it
> > does, or it could check for the presence of an xmlns declaration
> > saying what “x-apple” means.
> 
> Given that the name "Apple" was recently subject to an enormous lawsuit
> between Apple Records and Apple Computers, surely this shows precisely
> why this couldn't work?
> 
> A registration authority is needed to ensure uniqueness of name. RDF
> uses URIs, and thus piggybacks on top of a registration authority which
> has proved itself to be pretty good: the DNS.
> 
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Received on Monday, 14 December 2009 22:52:12 UTC