- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:08:50 +0200
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, atom-syntax@imc.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Martin Duerst wrote: > > At 13:54 04/05/21 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: > >> / Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say: > > >> | Well, QNames, obviously. The next XHTML 2.0 Working Draft will likely >> | incorporate <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html> which >> | proposes to use QNames in the rel/rev attributes of the XHTML 2.0 link >> | element. Whatever syntax it will be, it seems undesirable to have more >> | than one across these formats. >> >> Indeed. If HTML is going to put QNames in there then we should too. > > > Or better yet, given the discussion here just a few days ago, > tell them (XHTML) that they should try to avoid QNames, and > that better solutions are available. QNames in attributes are > a bad idea, and using them in XHTML doesn't make them better. Quite. I'm also not sure why the XHTML 2.0 group might incorporate Birbeck's RDF in XHTML, as I believe it works on top of the current XHTML 2.0 spec so there's no dependency the other way. I suspect it would be a little premature to adopt this approach in any case - the proposal has gone down very well with a lot of RDF people, as this has been something we've needed for years. But I think it's likely to hit resistance when presented to regular XML folks who've known problems with QNames in attributes before (to the extent of calling them evil! [1]) , and coincidentally have had issues with RDF syntax in the past. I think he's probably on the right lines, but I think it would be reckless to jump on the first version that vaguely works as the final answer. As far as I can see there are other issues - something that would work fully with XHTML 1.0 would be nice for a start, and the relationship between the text content and the metadata is limited. But I'm sure with a few short cycles the RDF in XHTML proposal could be made palatable for a considerably larger number of people. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2003/12/06/qnames_are_evil -- Raw http://dannyayers.com
Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 05:14:32 UTC