- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:18:11 -0500
Toby A Inkster wrote: > So RDFa, as it is currently defined, does need a CURIE binding > mechanism. XML namespaces are used for XHTML+RDFa 1.0, but given that > namespaces don't work in HTML, an alternative mechanism for defining > them is expected, and for consistency would probably be allowed in XHTML > too - albeit in a future version of XHTML+RDFa, as 1.0 is already > finalised. (I don't speak for the RDFa task force as I am not a member, > but I would be surprised if many of them disagreed with me strongly on > this.) Speaking as an RDFa Task Force member - we're currently looking at an alternative prefix binding mechanism, so that this: xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" could also be declared like this in non-XML family languages: prefix="foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" The thought is that this prefix binding mechanism would be available in both XML and non-XML family languages. The reason that we used xmlns: was because our charter was to specifically create a mechanism for RDF in XHTML markup. The XML folks would have berated us if we created a new namespace declaration mechanism without using an attribute that already existed for exactly that purpose. That being said, we're now being berated by the WHATWG list for doing the Right Thing per our charter... sometimes you just can't win :) I don't think that the RDFa Task Force is as rigid in their positions as some on this list are claiming... we do understand the issues, are working to resolve issues or educate where possible and desire an open dialog with WHATWG. -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Website Launch http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/01/16/bitmunk-3-1-website-launch
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2009 16:18:11 UTC