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

Manu Sporny wrote:
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>   
>> we don't have a problem with unprefixed
>> CURIEs in @about, @property, @datatype, or @resource.
>>     
>
> If we have a problem with unprefixed CURIEs in @rel and @rev, why are we
> not being consistent and stating that they don't belong in
> @about/@property/@datatype and @resource in XHTML+RDFa?
>   
Yeah... I think I agree with this.  Just drop them altogether from 
XHTML+RDFa.  We don't need them for anything.  CURIEs are prefixed.  
Period.  They expand to IRIs lexically and URIs in the value space.  End 
of story.

 From a syntax perspective it is a little weird.  I think that the 
syntax becomes curie :  prefix ':' reference

and the datatype for @rel and @rev becomes curie | one of an enumerated 
list of values.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 23:11:48 UTC