"Triage" of ISSUE-69

Looking at ISSUE-69, it is certainly not an editorial one. If I understand the issue right, the question is whether we should have a default prefix defined for xml and xmlns. Ie, whether we should automatically accept xml:blabla as a CURIE and not generate a URI when used as an attribute value. The same for xmlns:blabla.

For reference, I have quoted what the XML document says about "xml:" in [1]. Indeed we have to say/do something because otherwise we may generate meaningless URI-s

I see the following alternatives:

1. Include a sentence in the RDFa 1.1 Core which disallows the usage of 'xml' and 'xmlns' as valid prefixes, both in their definitions (ie, listed in @prefix) and in using them as a CURIE. Ie, hitting such a CURIE should generate an error.
2. If we agree in having default profiles where default prefixes can be defined (ie, a positive resolution on ISSUE-78) then we can add these:

  xml   -> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace#
  xmlns -> http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/

and leave at that. Note that it would not be required for an RDFa processor to check whether, in xml:XXX, XXX is properly defined; after all, we do not do that for any other vocabulary either.

I in favour of #2, but that relies on a positive resolution of ISSUE-78. Failing that, I do not see what else we could do than #1...

Ivan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Jan/0009.html




----
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