Re: Need volunteer reviewers for RDFa Core 1.1 (pre-Last Call)

Tuesday 2010-10-19 22:51 Toby Inkster:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:53:56 +0200
> Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > The latter (i.e. putting attributes into the empty namespace) is
> > what, according to Toby, all currently existing host languages do.
> 
> No, it's not what all existing host languages do.

Sorry for mis-quoting you on that, …

> Somewhat annoyingly, OpenDocument Format 1.2 puts the RDFa attributes
> in the {http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml} namespace.

… indeed you had said that before.  As you say "annoying", am I right to assume that OpenDocument could afford putting the RDFa attributes into the empty namespace?  I.e. that there are no conflicts with other attributes having the same name.

> > However, I would strongly advise providing for the alternative
> > possibility to put RDFa attributes into some non-empty namespace,
> > possibly xmlns:rdfa="http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#".
> 
> Yep - I'd agree with that. I'd suggest that host languages *SHOULD*
> keep them in the empty namespace, but it makes sense to provide a
> namespace they can use if need be.

Shane has fixed that to "either empty namespace or XHTML namespace" for now, which should IMHO cover all cases.  Therefore I consider my suggestion of http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa# obsolete.

> However, host languages must pick one and stick with it. Putting @href
> in one namespace, @prefix in another and @about in the empty namespace
> would be horrible!

I completely agree.  (Maybe that should be made explicit in the spec.)  Otherwise it would inevitably lead to confusion, particularly in cases such as

<element about="..." xhtml:about="..."/>

Cheers,

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701