Re: Consensus on alternate prefixing mechanism

Manu Sporny wrote:
>
> I have noted these issues on the rdfa.info wiki:
>
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/alternate-prefix-declaration-mechanism#Outstanding_Issues
>
> Anybody else disagree or have more input on these issues?
>
> -- manu
>   
Hello Manu Ivan , thank you Manu for documenting this.

Im still a little unsure of why RDFa should support an alternate 
prefixing mechanism,  its never a good thing in my view to support two 
ways of doing the same thing?

I really do not like the @prefix mechanism at all it seems intuitive and 
a little "hackish". If RDFa really neds to support such a mechanism I am 
more in favour of re-using what we already have and not thinking of 
something new, @content seem ideal for this purpose

<div content="foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
     rel="foaf:page"
     typeof="foaf:Document">
....
....
</div>

multiple prefixes can also declared in this way eg: 
@content="foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ 
dct=http://purl.org/dc/terms/". I prefer @content over @prefix because 
authors already know what it means.

I dont believe any of these should be legal

* foo=
        # would this default to the current document?

 * =http://someuri.com/
        # why would you want to overide the default namespace?

* xmlns:foo="http://foo.com" @prefix="foo=http://bar.com/"
       # on the same element seems pointless as you cant really 
differentiate the URI's, you cant do that in RDF so why should you be 
able to do that in RDFa?

* I also think this should be Illegal  @prefix="audio= 
http://purl.org/media/audio# video = http://purl.org/media/video#"
       # spaces between the "=" equals.


Thank you.

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/

"You may find it hard to swallow the notion that anything as large and apparently inanimate as the Earth is alive."
Dr. James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia

Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 11:08:17 UTC