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

Re: discussion of QNames in content in RDFa documents?

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:17:50 -0500
Message-ID: <46FFDA3E.3050409@aptest.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Note that RDFa does not use QNames.  It uses "compact URIs" which are 
defined in the RDFa syntax document itself.  Your comment is still 
valid, and I think it is a good idea to add some text to address these 
concerns - just wanted to be sure everyone knows that we are not using 
QNames in attribute values.

Dan Connolly wrote:
> The TAG finding on QNames doesn't come right out
> and say "don't use them in attribute values and content"
> but it enumerates a bunch of problems when you do...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids.html
> It seems worthwhile for the RDFa specs to say
> something along the lines of "yes, we know QNames in
> attribute values don't work well with canonicalization
> nor CSS selectors, but we think it's worth doing anyway."
> i.e. anticipate criticism such as this rather than deal
> with it as a last call comment or some such...
> "As it is based on the  
> (horrid, imo) concept of qnames in content two equivalent (not identical)  
> documents can't necessarily be styled using the same binding because the  
> Selectors language and the DOM have no support for qnames in content."
>  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0520.html

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2007 17:18:16 UTC

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