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
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
: [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
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
