should SVG 1.2T extensible metadata attributes be of type CURIE?

Reference:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2008Oct/0052.html

** in a word: no

The most crisp reason is a matter of short-term
concern and language-lawyering technicalities.

SVG 1.2 Tiny needs to progress rapidly up the rest of the
Rec track.  Their implementation experience is in the bag;
this Last Call was to double check the repair of a few
substantive problems from the previous CR version.

CURIEs are about to enter CR; they are unlikely to catch and
pass SVG 1.2T in maturity grade.  So SVG 1.2T can't stand
a normative dependency on CURIEs.

Even over the long term, SVG should probably view things
like @class and @rel/rev as derived from text/html and not
from XHTML per se.  Thus the answer only gets to a 'maybe.'

The CURIE spec itself warns against using CURIEs as the
datatype in attributes with a pre-existing practice of
plain-text token use.

And 'no' for now is the only safe choice.

Al

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 19:58:45 UTC