- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:31:36 -0600
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
We absolutely should not reopen this issue - in fact there is no issue to open that I know of. I was just hoping someone could point me at a use case, and you did. Thanks! Ben Adida wrote: > Ivan Herman wrote: >> >> Why is there a difference between @rel/@rev and @resource/@about in >> this respect? After all, we could argue that we could put a full URI >> into the @rel/@rev value, too... In all cases the value of CURIE-s is >> that I do not have to type in a full, long, and possibly complicated >> URI... (which I have to do all the time in RDF/XML, and it is quite a >> pain...) > > See my previous post on needing bnode referencing in @resource. > > That doesn't apply to @rel/@rev, which are only predicates, and we've > resolved that, to keep the initial cases of RDFa simple, we didn't > want safe CURIEs in @rel/@rev.... > > Now, putting on my chair hat.... > > There will always be ways of pointing out slight inconsistencies in > what we do, because we're working with a host language we don't > control. The approach we seem to have implicitly agreed upon is to > keep existing attributes simple (CURIE *or* URI, not both), add more > features in the new attributes (safe CURIEs in @about and @resource), > and ensure some reasonable consistency (@property same as @rel). I > think that was the group's compromise, and I'm not seeing any reason > to re-open this discussion in last call, unless there's a specific use > case that's really a problem. > > -Ben -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 20:31:55 UTC