I agree with Martin D~{(9~}rst's analysis.
I have added the following to the AtomAsRDF [1] proposal.
Text close to the following should appear in the spec (please make more precise)
"Processors should interpret unprefixed attributes in atom namespaced elements to be in the atom namespace"
This seems good enough for what we need, and should cause absolutely no difficulty
for non-rdf aware parsers.
There is a section "Rejected Solutions" which mentions solution 2. This is to help people coming to the discussion get an overview of how we came to our decision, and
perhaps notice an oversight.
Henry Story http://bblfish.net/blog/
[1] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomAsRDF
On 24 Jan 2005, at 04:12, Martin Duerst wrote:
At 03:07 05/01/23, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>On Jan 22, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Bill de h~{%b~}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.
