Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-5

• From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
• Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:09:38 -0700
• To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
• CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <46780DD2.30304@adida.net>

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.

-Ben

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