- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:18:30 -0500
- To: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org
Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >> My preference would be an >> erratum to RDFa removing this syntax, replacing them with a self- >> contained identifier (i.e. a URI). Thoughts? > > More generally, I think it would make sense to issue an erratum that > replaces all CURIEs in RDFa with the corresponding full URIs Also, to clarify for those that are interested, we've been having this same discussion over the past several weeks(years) on the RDFa TF mailing list. Please read the thread before responding to this one, as it covers a great deal of the issues raised by Henri and Mark Nottingham in the current thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Feb/0120.html Going with the full-URI approach, aside from raising a slew of objections from the various communities involved, would also undo all of the benefits of CURIEs: http://rdfa.info/wiki/developer-faq#Why_does_RDFa_use_CURIEs.3F The draw-backs of CURIEs have been noted here: http://rdfa.info/wiki/developer-faq#What_are_the_draw-backs_of_using_CURIEs.3F We're currently working on an alternative prefixing proposal for languages/APIs that cannot provide "xmlns:" (for whatever reason): http://rdfa.info/wiki/design-suite#Mapping_prefixes_in_XHTML1.2C_XHTML2.2C_HTML4_and_HTML5 Please be aware of these initiatives before responding in order to contribute to a more productive discussion. -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Scaling Past 100,000 Concurrent Web Service Requests http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/09/30/scaling-webservices-part-1
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 15:19:15 UTC