- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:45:49 +0100
On 18/1/09 20:07, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Jan 18, 2009, at 20:48, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> On 18/1/09 19:34, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 01:32, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> >>>> Are you then saying that this will be a showstopper, and there will >>>> never be either a workaround or compromise? >>> >>> >>> Are the RDFa TF open to compromises that involve changing the XHTML side >>> of RDFa not to use attribute whose qualified name has a colon in them to >>> achieve DOM Consistency by changing RDFa instead of changing parsing? >> >> I don't believe the RDFa TF are in a position to singlehandedly >> rescind a W3C Recommendation, ie. >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/. >> >> What they presumably could do is propose new work items within W3C, >> which I'd guess would be more likely to be accepted if it had the >> active enthusiasm of the core HTML5 team. Am cc:'ing TimBL here who >> might have something more to add. >> >> Do you have an alternative design in mind, for expressing the >> namespace mappings? > > The simplest thing is not to have mappings but to put the corresponding > absolute URI wherever RDFa uses a CURIE. So this would be a kind of "interoperability profile" of RDFa, where certain features approved of by REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 wouldn't be used in some hypothetical HTML5 RDFa. If people can control their urge to use namespace abbreviations, and stick to URIs directly, would this make your DOM-oriented concerns go away? cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2009 11:45:49 UTC