- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:37:43 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 08.04.2011 18:14, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> I ask you to give us a few days to evaluate the request that you have made. >> Meanwhile I am willing to state that the fact that you "thought that was >> the reason for *URIs*, not prefixes" does not meet that bar. > > Kurt's statement was strictly incorrect, though; jgraham's correction > aids in keeping the discussion focused on the matter at hand, which is > precisely what to do with prefixes. If someone believe that > *prefixes* are the mechanism by which you disambiguate mixed languages > (rather than one possible solution to the problem of "using URIs to > disambiguate mixed languages makes hand-authoring hard"), you'll draw > incorrect conclusions. Jgraham correctly pointed out one such > confusion: that it's okay for prefixes to be complex, because machines > will usually be the ones who author them. Machines don't have the > problem that prefixes attempt to solve, so we shouldn't worry about > them as a class of producers - prefixes, if they are kept, must solely > be optimized for human hand-authoring, as that was their original (and > currently unchanged) purpose. > ... Hm, not entirely. Prefix-based indirection *also* can reduce the size of the generated HTML, and make it more readable (for human users; think "view source"). Whether that's important is a separate issue. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 16:38:21 UTC