- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:16:16 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "Hondros, Constantine" <Constantine.Hondros@wolterskluwer.com>, "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, >> But now that RDFa 1.1 has a more cohesive story about about CURIEs and >> tokens being applied consistently across all of our attributes, we >> should consider creating an 'xmlliteral' token to sit alongside >> 'next', 'prev', 'license', etc. >> > > But this is not only an rdf:XMLLiteral issue, is it? That's true, but rdf:XMLLiteral is the only data type that is referred to in the processing rules. It does therefore have a special position in RDFa. > If the XHTML code contains an explicit > @datatype="xsd:integer", this also requires the definition of the xsd prefix. Do you mean > that we should define a term for all the XSD datatypes? No, I wasn't suggesting that...but now you say it, I don't think it's such a bad idea. :) At the very least, we should consider defining some basic types, such as integers and dates. > There is quite a load of them, and > there is a danger that those terms would clash with terms used elsewhere (remember that > we do not have any association that says that a specific term can be used with a specific > attribute only...) That's true, although I'm not sure what the scenarios would be where we clash with tokens that people have defined, such as 'integer', 'date', etc. > We had some discussion about defining default prefixes. One possibility would be to say > that prefixes for all standard W3C URIs vocabularies are automatically defined by default, > ie, rdf, rdfs, skos, owl, xsd, powder (I may forget some). The inclusion of non-standard > prefixes like foaf, dc, or cc, might be more touchy in terms of (social) process, but I do not > see any issue with standard w3c vocabularies... That's also a way to go, but forgive me for saying that I don't think it aims high enough. I think we want Microformats-like simplicity in the resulting markup, and that means we need to exposed complex features in a simple way. With tokens and @vocab, authors can go a long way without having to make use of prefix mappings, so I'd like to see us continue in that direction. 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)
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 10:16:52 UTC