RE: CURIEs / QNames

> Mostly; also:
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xhtml-rdfa-20100422/
> 
> Note the prefix construct and the continued reliance on CURIES.

I'm probably not a good choice to review any RDF material, but I think I can
say that C14N 2.0 ought not to have to understand the vocabulary it's
dealing with. We should stick to, at most, straight data typing of content
expressed directly in XML.

It looked from a brief read like this is trying to express things that might
otherwise be expressed in XML markup as content within an XHTML document.

> It would be great if you could have a quick look at how this affects c14n
> 2.0.

I think the CURIE concept itself can be addressed directly, if we wanted to
do so, by treating it as equivalent to the QName concept in the proposal I
was making. I'm fairly neutral on that, but it seems wise to do this if
CURIEs are going to have any uptake. We wouldn't want to miss the chance to
deal with it.

I think as an implementer of c14n, addressing both QName and CURIE content
in one place is simple and doesn't really require any understanding of
CURIEs. All that we're worrying about here is the prefix part, which is
defined the same in both.

-- Scott

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:04:44 UTC