- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:06:40 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi Dan, Forgive me, but I don't quite follow what you're getting at. Are you saying that 'prefix' would have been better defined using 'Name' from the XML 1.0 spec? If so, I don't see how it could, since 'prefix' needs to be the 'non-colon' version of 'Name', i.e., 'NCName'. This is only defined in the XML Namespaces spec, as far as I know. But that might not be what you mean...have I missed what you're driving at? :) Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, webBackplane mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, London, EC2A 4RR) On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > The production > prefix := NCName > > in the curie syntax section > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies > > goes to the Jan 1999 spec > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-NCName > > Is that by design? It would seem so, as the references > section is quite explicit: > > [XMLNS] > "Namespaces in XML", W3C Recommendation, T. Bray et al., eds., > 14 January 1999. > > Let's see... > > The status of the 26 November 2008 edition of the XML spec says > "erratum [E09] relaxes the restrictions on element and attribute names" > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ > > Looks like RDFa went to REC in Oct 2008, just before then. > > Ugh. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > > >
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 00:07:15 UTC