Ben Adida wrote:
Shane McCarron wrote:
This has nothing to do with href.
Really? Did we indeed vote to disallow:
<div href="[_:foo]">
?
We did not change the datatype of @href nor of @src, so the above would
be illegal in XHTML+RDFa. I assume that's the question you were asking.
I think I would be okay if we had, but even so, having different
syntax for URIs in @resource and @href would be quite confusing:
<a href="http://example.org"; resource="<http://example.org/alternate>">
Changing the way URIs are written in HTML... that's some pretty risky
stuff. I'm *much* more in favor of thinking about better ways to
represent CURIEs, even if they require a few more characters.
Hmm.... I would characterize it as "Defining the way non-CURIEs are
referenced in @about and @resource", not "Changing the way URIs are
written in HTML." Tantamount to the same thing though. But those are
new attributes, and we can populate them however we want. I think what
this really comes down to is: Do we prefer that people use CURIEs or
that people use URIs in these attributes? I suspect the answer is
URIs. In which case, changing the syntax of URIs makes little sense.
The only use case I know of for using a CURIE in @about is when
referencing a bnode. If that's true, then... Maybe it is simpler to
just say that in this edge case you need to use this weird syntax for
your CURIEs and be done with it.
(To make things worse, I'm pretty sure you have to XML-escape the <
and > characters inside attribute values if you want things to
validate, and that gets quite ugly.)
Excellent point. Brackets would work tho.... That was the other
syntax Tim proposed.
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
