- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:53:44 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:13:46 -0500 Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: > Consider the following: > > 1. A TERM is visually indistinguishable from a relative URI. > 2. If relative URIs are permitted, there is NO way to flag an > illegal token during parsing. Every string that matches the > production(s) will result in a triple. > 3. There are no compelling use cases for supporting relative URIs - > at least not in the places where this datatype is used. > 4. Excluding relative URIs makes explaining how this datatype works > easier, and therefore can reduce the barrier to adoption. Agreed. I'd like to add to this list: 5. It would be nice to have some lexical space in @property, @rel, @rev, etc that RDFa 1.1 leaves undefined and RDFa 1.1 processors are required to ignore - this provides future versions of RDFa with scope to improve these attributes. (e.g. allowing SPARQL-1.1-style property paths.) -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 22:55:02 UTC