I actually think ISSUE-41 is completely orthogonal to the direction
RDFa is going. RDFa Core defines @prefix and effectively deprecates
xmlns. We don't care about namespaces. We never did. We just needed a
way to map one string to another for shorthand vocabulary terms that are
easily dereferenced on the web.
On 9/15/2010 2:28 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Nathan, Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:55:40 +0100:
Manu Sporny wrote:
Just a heads-up. The editor of the HTML5 specification has escalated an
issue in the HTML WG that started out as a bug against RDFa in HTML.
This concerns the design decision to use prefixes in RDFa as well as the
concept of CURIEs:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/120
The entire bug history can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
can somebody point me to a proposed and viable alternative?
ISSUE-41, Decentralized extensibility:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/41
OK, I'm stretching it. But I think that ISSUE-120 has to be seen in
relationshiop to ISSUE-41. ISSUE-41 has 3 proposals:
a) drop the whole issue - Ian's route,
b) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0077.html
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/extensionslikesvg and
c) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0076.html
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/html:xmlns
b) and c) both allows namespaces amd prefixes in HTML, under different
restrictions.
a) is not accepted yet, but it will probably accepted in the end.
b) is accepted as proposal by the chairs
c) is a proposal by yours truly - it is not accepted by the chairs yet.
So I would recommend the RDFa WG to not look blindly at ISSUE-120 but
to also look at ISSUE-41.
For my own part, if you find that my proposal, c), is any good, then
I'd appreciate encouragement to update it. If I don't update it, then I
expect the chairs to not accept it. (Pew, finally I found a way to ask
this question ...) I'm happy to drop it, due to time constrain and
everything ...
So at the moment, I think the RDFa communityt should consider first of
all if solution b) could bring to RDFa+HTML what you need and want. (I
know that I think solution b) _perhaps_ could represent a
simplificaiton of the use of prefixes - in HTML. But you really rather
read and judge for yourself - I perhaps haven't understood it. But you
will find that it mentions RDFa.
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: [email protected]
