Re: Proposal for allowing URIs in CURIE-only attributes

Mark Birbeck wrote:
[skip]
> 
> 
> PROPOSAL
> 
> So to bring everything together, the proposal is:
> 
>  (a) RDFa should add support for URIs in attributes that currently only
>      support CURIEs;
> 
>  (b) authors should be encouraged to use safe-CURIEs in those
>      attributes;
> 
>  (c) but since ordinary CURIEs may still be used, we should differentiate
>      by saying that anything appearing before a colon, that is not a
>      mapped prefix, is a protocol.
> 

Isn't it correct that, using the same approach, we can also get away
with the requirement that @about and @resource must use URI-s? Ie, that
if I want to use curies for @about, I will have to use safe curies? I
must admit forgetting about safeness in @about is the most common
mistake I make when I author RDFa.

Of course, for backward compatibility reasons, we should still allow for
safe curies, but we can remove their obligatory nature...

I understand that there might be a serious push back on adopting this
for attributes like @href and @img, which are 'inherited', so to say, by
RDFa, ie, that may have other interpretations. And I would not have any
problems excluding @href/@img from this. But for the RDFa specific
attributes, ie, @resource and @about, a unified approach to CURIE vs.
URI handling would be advantageous in my view.

Cheers

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf