W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: prefixes vs full URIs, Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:47:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9F3C3E.70701@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/08/2011 12:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

For the moment, I am going to assume that you had not yet read my 
previous note:


Posting of decisions is not intended to be perceived by members of the 
working group as an invitation to restart discussions.  Decisions can be 
reopened based on new information, or they can signal the start of 
discussions at a higher level within the W3C organization.

Unless your emails on this subject contain new information directly 
relevant to the potential reopening of this issue, I ask that you not 
post them to this mailing list at this time.

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 16:48:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:12 UTC