W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

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

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:27:26 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300709140327g76984fe1u6e632fb33e3a63b6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Ben,

> Mark wrote:
> > 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'.
> I think Ivan is right on this one: our thinking cannot depend on a
> future CURIE spec. We need to make things work with existing XHTML 1.1.

Please see other emails. Key point is that this has nothing to do with
CURIEs per se. CURIEs were devised to be similar to QNames, so even if
we swapped out CURIEs for QNames, we would still have to work this

> So, with a CURIE-independent mindset, we can't have rel="openid.server"
> or rel="DC.creator" generate spurious triples.

Good to see that we both have CURIE-independent mindsets. Anyway, I
did try to say that I'm not particularly bothered about saying that
RDFa should be forced to generate 'extra' triples, but what I am
saying is that a parser should be *allowed* to generate something.
I've tried to explain that better in a separate email.

> we'd get killed at Last Call, just like we got killed for the spurious @class
> triples.


> I don't see any other solution than to say that "next" and "prev" are
> special-cased, using e.g. a pre-processing step, and any other
> non-namespaced values are ignored.

Step one is fine, but perhaps we can make step 2 'undefined', and let
processors do whatever they want.

> If that changes in XHTML2, that's fine, of course. Consistency is not
> always possible when we have to be mostly backwards compatible with the
> existing web. But XHTML1.1+RDFa can't force authors to change their
> XHTML 1.1 too much.

This is a bit a mix-up, since what I'm looking for has nothing to do
with the future, and everything to do with how to get access to legacy
data, precisely if authored XHTML doesn't change.

I can see that I've probably created the confusion by discussing these
issues, at the same time as assuming that the use-case is obvious. I
realise that most people are looking at RDFa in the context of
server-side processing, and so some of the data I'm trying to get at
would be irrelevant.

Anyway, I've tried to explain it better in another email, but just to
say here that the whole point is that I don't want authors to change
*anything*. I want to get at the data that they have already put in,
but that has been entered using old-style formats. It's a problem for
now, not XHTML 2.



  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 10:27:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC