but still not very good.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 7:33 AM
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
While Google owns the Web
Manu Sporny wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or gets
taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because
Manu Sporny wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or
gets
taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because
James Graham wrote:
Given the problems with using DNS as your registry noted above and the
fact that the recommended solution to this problem is to use a small
number of registries built atop DNS that promise greater longevity than
DNS registrations can ensure, it doesn't seem unreasonable to
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Does not use QNames is not an advantage any more than does not require
the user to be a USA citizen. So you could have listed that as well.
I would like to append the following to the disadvantages:
The interface A[property] is very misleading. You read it as The
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I always copy paste, too. That's my point. Namespace waste my time
almost every day.
If all you did was produce content and no one ever consumed it, indeed
namespaces would be a waste of time.
But the time you're spending is not wasted if it helps consumers make
more
(reposting a private email to the list...)
Manu Sporny wrote:
...
The syntax document explains each bullet point more clearly in the
Introduction section[1].
In other words,
1) CURIEs always map to a IRI.
2) They don't have any constraints on the reference portion (the part
after the
On Aug 27, 2008, at 16:33, Smylers wrote:
So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they
are so
long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional
syntax
to avoid having to write them out.
Moreover, having to look up the URIs is a major pain when writing
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Aug 27, 2008, at 16:33, Smylers wrote:
So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they are so
long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional syntax
to avoid having to write them out.
Moreover, having to look up the URIs is a major
On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:18, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Aug 27, 2008, at 16:33, Smylers wrote:
So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they
are so
long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional
syntax
to avoid having to write them
] RDFa Features
3. We needed a solution that would map cleanly to non-XML family
languages. In hindsight, we should have picked @prefix instead of
@xmlns to define prefixes, but that ended up going through. We're
looking at alternative mechanisms, such as having a @prefix
attribute
anything appended to them
without dereferencing them first.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 6:57 PM
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features
Namespaces are difficult for people
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
I have to repeat Ian's question now: what happens when the server with a
custom vocabulary definition goes down? Does it take a part of the semantic
Web down along with it?
If it's a popular vocabulary, it's probably been cached appropriately.
If it's an edge-case
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:33 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: 'Manu Sporny'; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
I have to repeat Ian's question now: what happens when the server with a
custom vocabulary
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or gets
taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because of a
malicious DNS.
Okay, let's get rid of a few cases. Malicious DNS will break
*everything* if you don't have DNSSEC. Google
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or gets
taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because of a
malicious DNS. I should have known better how to ask it. The browser
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Consider the question to be asked by me as well. A host of a popular
format forgets to maintain its registration and gets squatted by a
malicious person. They pick up another url to host their schema on, but
legacy pages are still pointing to the old url and now may have
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:46 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; 'Manu Sporny'
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or gets
taken over
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Manu Sporny wrote:
3. We needed a solution that would map cleanly to non-XML family
languages. In hindsight, we should have picked @prefix instead of
@xmlns to define prefixes, but that ended up going through. We're
looking at alternative mechanisms, such as
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Ben Adida wrote:
Well, for one, if you've got prefixes, you just need to change where
your prefix points :) So that's kinda nice.
That's the issue. We're talking *legacy* pages, which means that
updates, even fairly easy ones, probably aren't going to
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
While Google owns the Web, it is not the core of the Web. If Google goes
down, Google users cannot use Google any more. Sure, there are quite a few
of them; but Google is a big fish accordingly.
On the other hand, if Verizon or InterNIC goes down, we have a
Manu Sporny writes:
Ian Hickson wrote:
there are a number of technical merits that speak in favor of RDFa
over Microformats (fully qualified vocabulary terms
Why is this better?
Emulated-namespace/Pseudo-namespace (EN/PN) vocabulary terms have been
mentioned on this list during
Of Smylers
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:33 PM
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features (was: RDFa Problem Statement)
So that is one disadvantage of URIs: they are long. In fact they are so
long that people have gone to the bother of inventing additional syntax
to avoid having
: [whatwg] RDFa Features (was: RDFa Problem Statement)
When you use non-prefixed vocabulary terms, the chances that there will
be a vocabulary term conflict between two communities rises
exponentially with relation to an increase in the number of total
vocabularies. This approach is not scalable
Smylers wrote:
...
The other advantage of unique prefixes over URIs is the one you mention:
they are not dereferenceable. As has been mentioned on this list, that
means nobody (human or system) will attempt to reference them, either by
mistake or in the hope of finding something there. This
: [whatwg] RDFa Features (was: RDFa Problem Statement)
prefix short-hand via CURIEs
This is definitely not better.
I don't know where you're coming from since you haven't elaborated on
that statement nor given a link to a document explaining your thought
process. Since you haven't done so, all
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:33 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: 'Manu Sporny'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'WHAT-WG'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] RDFa Features
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
You cannot support both CURIEs and URLs. What happens when someone
declares
xmlns:http?
http
PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: 'Manu Sporny'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'WHAT-WG'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
It would.
My recommendation is to require
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
Hi Smylers,
Thanks for taking the time to read this rather long thread and
contribute to the discussion. Responses to your comments are below. :)
Smylers wrote:
Hi Manu. Do you disagree with the Microformats community's belief about
namespaces being more difficult, or do you think they are
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Has anyone considered having an URI in an entity in order to avoid typing it
over and over?
e.g.
!DOCTYPE html
!ENTITY myVocab http://www.example.com/vocab/;
And later
Property=myVocab;myPred?
Yes, we did discuss this at great length in the RDFa community and to
Manu Sporny wrote:
Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Has anyone considered having an URI in an entity in order to avoid typing it
over and over?
e.g.
!DOCTYPE html
!ENTITY myVocab http://www.example.com/vocab/;
And later
Property=myVocab;myPred?
Yes, we did discuss this at great length in the RDFa
Hi Ian,
The second part of the replies to your questions regarding RDFa are
below. Note that the list of technical merits I was affording RDFa was
not meant to be exhaustive and I won't be adding to them in the body of
this particular e-mail. There are additional ones, however, and we can
get a
34 matches
Mail list logo
