- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:45:19 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
"Don't cross the streams... It would be bad." i.e. are you mixing in an unrelated issue? On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 19:07 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dan Connolly writes: > > > On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:33 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: > >> I was under the impression that the founding fathers meant for Link: > >> and <link> to be compatible. We seem to have lost that possibility > >> now, due to lack of coordination between groups working independently > >> on extensions to HTTP and XHTML. > > > > They're still compatible if you consider both CURIEs and > > URI references as syntactic sugar for URIs. > > But URI refs and CURIEs overlap lexically -- how are you supposed to > tell whether mailto:robin is a URI reference or a CURIE? HTTP Link: it's a URI reference, and in RDFa, (I assume, I haven't looked closely) it's a CURIE. > The TAG is > on record [1] as saying CURIEs should not be deployed in existing > contexts where URIs are currently specified. > > ht > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2008JanMar/0014.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 18:44:23 UTC