- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:00:16 +0100
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, > As you said yourself: my motivation is different here. I do _not_ start > with the general CURIE issues and I selfishly put my head in the sand > and look at RDFa only:-( In other words, from an argumentation point of > view, I do not really want to take that into account... That's why I mentioned QNames. You are proposing a third syntax...not QNames which has an optional prefix...not CURIEs that were devised as an attempt to solve the problems of QNames...but a third syntax that is CURIEs with a *mandatory* prefix. > [snip] > I am afraid we are repeating ourselves and we can agree that we > disagree. The TC should vote. As long as it's clear that there are two separate issues, which I explain in more detail in my other email. I don't see a problem with voting on whether we should generate 'legacy' triples or not--that's fine. If the answer to that is 'no', then we need to find a way to express how these values are ignored. But messing with CURIEs/QNames to achieve this is something that cannot be done lightly, and would certainly need an additional vote. 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 Friday, 14 September 2007 10:00:21 UTC