Re: AtomAsRDF

[Martin Duerst]

At 03:07 05/01/23, Tim Bray wrote:
 >
 >On Jan 22, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Bill de hモra wrote:
 >
 >> 1. specify that processors should interpret unprefixed attributes in 
atom namespaced elements to be in the atom namespace. This is idiom as 
specification.
 >>
 >> 2. specify that all our attributes are to be prefixed. This is 
specification as overkill.
 >>
 >> 3. mutter darkly about that damnable namespaces spec, and do nothing :)
 >
 >> My preference is for 2.
 >
 >Blecch.  As in, ugly and wasteful. -Tim

My preference is for 1, too. After all, we are doing "Atom as RDF",
not "Atom is RDF", here, in which case 1 is all we need, and it's
definitely easier for people not involved in RDF.

Regards,    Martin.