Re: Fine-tuning CURIEs (reply #2 :-)

Hi Ivan,

> I have not seen any argument (sorry about that...) that would make my
> opinion change.

With respect, at least you have seen some arguments.

I haven't yet seen anything that convincingly says why we should
change the parsing rules for CURIEs such that they are no longer a
super-set of QNames, given that their whole purpose is to do what
QNames has been co-opted to do, but do it 'properly'.

Also, I'm not understanding why we should not have a mechanism for
exposing *any* metadata in a document to an application that is using
an RDFa parser.

That's two very big 'losses', so I'd really like to see the 'gain'.

Just to clarify, I don't mind if my mechanism for using legacy
predicates is not in the core syntax. I think it's clearer to people
building user interfaces why you need it, so I can live with having it
as a feature of my parser. So the big problem for me is your desire to
disallow CURIEs that have no colon in, since it is then different to
both QNames and other uses of CURIEs.

I have to get the syntax document finished before Shane and Ben get
out of bed :) so I'll have to come back to this later, but I'm posting
this now in case you can think of some solution in the meantime.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 10:42:37 UTC