Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-5

Ivan Herman wrote:
> My practical problem is that if we want to finalize RDFa as soon as
> possible, which is the goal of everyone of us, than we should
> de-associate RDFa from CURIE-s. Can we reformulate the issue along these
> lines (@rel/@rev/@property use QNAME, for example)?

It's a little bit difficult to do so with the CURIE/URI datatype for
@about. This is becoming a more rare use case, but still an important one.

Regardless, before we get into an involved discussion, I believe this is
a different issue than ISSUE-5. The issue should probably be
reformulated as: "should @rel/@rev/@property also accept URIs?" And I
believe the consensus answer right now is "NO."

Whether the other datatype is CURIE or QName is something we should
discuss separately.


Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 17:09:59 UTC