Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com, 2009-01-18 19:18 -0500:
Speaking as an RDFa Task Force member - we're currently looking at an
alternative prefix binding mechanism, so that this:
xmlns:foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/;
could also be declared like this in non-XML family languages:
Michael(tm) Smith m...@w3.org, 2009-01-19 17:40 +0900:
Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com, 2009-01-18 19:18 -0500:
prefix=foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/;
URL for an archived mailing-list discussion about it?
OK, I found this:
On Jan 19, 2009, at 02:18, Manu Sporny wrote:
Toby A Inkster wrote:
So RDFa, as it is currently defined, does need a CURIE binding
mechanism. XML namespaces are used for XHTML+RDFa 1.0, but given that
namespaces don't work in HTML, an alternative mechanism for defining
them is expected, and
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Michael(tm) Smith m...@w3.org, 2009-01-19 17:40 +0900:
Manu Sporny mspo...@digitalbazaar.com, 2009-01-18 19:18 -0500:
prefix=foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/;
URL for an archived mailing-list discussion about it?
OK, I found this:
Just a couple of clarifications - not trying to convince anybody of
anything, just setting the record straight.
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Even though switching over to 'prefix' in both HTML and XHTML would
address the DOM Consistency concern, using them for RDF-like URI mapping
would as opposed to
Toby A Inkster wrote:
So RDFa, as it is currently defined, does need a CURIE binding
mechanism. XML namespaces are used for XHTML+RDFa 1.0, but given that
namespaces don't work in HTML, an alternative mechanism for defining
them is expected, and for consistency would probably be allowed in
