Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features

Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
> This amounts to saying that URLs take precedence over CURIEs and CURIEs can
> be enclosed in brackets in case of any ambiguity.  This sounds ridiculous
> given the weight you put on avoiding ambiguities and name clashes.  Since
> the author does not control the URL scheme registration process, he can
> never be sure that a particular prefix is "safe", therefore using unsafe
> CURIEs is just asking for trouble.  However, Manu's examples DO NOT use safe
> CURIEs, nor do any examples I have seen on this discussion.  Good heavens!~

I agree. The "when there is any possibility of ambiguity" sentence  is a 
bit weak. I don't know the CURIEs spec well; but for cases where the 
assumption is 'this URI scheme won't be registered', the assumption is 
dangerous.

Dan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:33 PM
> To: Kristof Zelechovski
> Cc: 'Manu Sporny'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'WHAT-WG'; www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features
> 
> Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
>> You cannot support both CURIEs and URLs.  What happens when someone
> declares
>> xmlns:http?
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/#sec_2.2.>.
> 
> BR, Julian
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 15:54:13 UTC