- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:06:25 +0300
On Aug 28, 2008, at 15:00, Russell Leggett wrote: > I actually think that using custom microformat-like conventions with > classes or tags is really not as robust a solution as what is being > attempted with RDFa (I honestly did not know much about RDFa before > this conversation). However, while people keep suggesting classes, I > have yet to hear anyone suggest the data- attributes. Maybe it was > said or implied elsewhere, but it seems like a good fit here. > Instead of requiring the addition of "about" or "property" > attributes, just use "data-about" or "data-property". It may not be > ideal, but it fits with the existing spec. As Anne and Julian have pointed out, that's not a use of data-* attributes permitted by the spec. > Beyond that, you have the issue of CURIEs. I can see how they make a > good fit, but it really is just piggybacking on something else > convenient. It's an abuse of namespace syntax. That works fine for > XHTML, but there is no way you are getting namespaces put into HTML, > so figure out another way. Why not something like "data-curie="dc:http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ > "? That would be an abuse of data-* attributes as well. The data-* attributes are for scripts included by the page itself. The data-* attributes aren't for communication with other parties. Having something-other-than-data-curie="dc:http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ " or somesuch would work around the layering problem of that qnames-in- content have (and CURIEs have, too, when using the namespace mapping context). It leaves the problem that making URLs shorter (in the amortized sense) by introducing a supposedly insignificant prefix confuses people and makes stuff brittle under copying and pasting. Why not property="http://the.entire.full/uri/here/if/you/really/want/uris/as#identifiers "? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 06:06:25 UTC