Re: Exact wording for non-prefixed CURIEs in @rel/@rev

Hi Ben,

I realise this is not voted on, etc., but I'm going to adopt this
approach in the document, with a note that it's not quite final. My
motivation is that although it could still change, we definitely know
that we don't want the approach that I have in the document now, so
it's pointless leaving that 'as is'.

The prose in there now is based on the 'defer the problem' approach
from before, which essentially just ignores non-prefixed values, but
doesn't say anything about how 'nice' non-prefixed values get mapped
to prefixed ones -- that was what we were going to leave to the
preprocessing/hGRDDL step.

So I _think_ that all I need to add to this is something along the
lines of "license" is a 'shorthand' for "xh:license", and then leave
the processing model itself completely unchanged. For now I will put
this in the section on @rel and @rev.

(And thanks to Manu for providing something to focus the discussion around.)

Regards,

Mark

On 22/01/2008, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > How about that? We simply modify the introductory part of the CURIE
> > section to say that unprefixed CURIEs are ignored (which we have
> > already, but it's not published) and then in some other suitable spot
> > we just say that "license" => "xh:license", "next" => "xh:next", and
> > so on.
>
> I like this, it maps nicely to how most parsers will be written without
> making a big stink about pre-processing like I was doing :)
>
> > And we might as well change the empty prefix from XHTML-vocab (since
> > no-one needs to write ":next" anymore) to the current default mapping.
>
> Sounds good to me, too.
>
> -Ben
>


-- 
  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 Tuesday, 22 January 2008 21:53:52 UTC