Re: Further changes to URI and CURIE processing description

Hi Ivan,

> Hm. I have not thought of @name at all! But my recollection was that we
> would leave @name out of the RDFa picture altogether, so I am not sure
> what you refer to when you say "@name we;ll have to do what I've done
> with @rel/@rev".

Well, the reason we devised @property was because we couldn't
generalise @name in the same way that we did with @rel and @rev. So
that gives us two issues. The first is whether this should generate a
triple or not:

  <meta name="description" content="My site" />

I think it would be very odd for it not to, and don't recall us ever
saying that @name should be ignored. In fact I think the view was
usually that @name is the same as @property, which raises the second
issue...why bother? In other words, should this generate a triple:

  <meta name="dc:title" content="My site" />

My view is that this should *not* generate a triple, but the first
example should. My rationale is that there is no point in polluting
the legacy space with CURIEs, or polluting the new attribute @property
with legacy values, if we don't have to. We *do* have to with @rel and
@rev, but let's keep it at that.


> I have no problem defining @property as CURIE and leave it at that. I
> guess my only issue is consistency: if this is what we do than the list
> of values in section 9.2.5 of the current syntax document is irrelevant
> and should be removed (as, as I said in my comment, most of section 9
> should be removed in my view...:-)

Yes, I agree, and on section 9, too, which I have commented on in the
other thread.

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  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 Thursday, 24 January 2008 12:51:15 UTC