ISSUE-116
Last Call Comment: use CURIE prefix other than xmlns for future HTML compatibility
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDFa
- Raised by:
- Ben Adida
- Opened on:
- 2008-04-03
- Description:
raised by PFWG in [1] """ 2.5 RDFa in HTML documents This specification does not address using RDFa in HTML documents (only for XHTML documents). While most of the specification could also be applied to HTML documents, the mapping of CURIE prefixes will have to be rewritten for HTML documents (since there is no namespace concept in HTML). This and the complexity problem mentioned in 2.4 make us wonder if the concept of CURIEs should be modified to not use the “xmlns:[prefix]” attribute for prefix mapping. Have you considered alternatives that would allow a consistent use of RDFa in HTML and XHTML documents? From the perspective of accessibility, consistency between HTML and XHTML documents should be a goal of the specification. """ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0031.html
- Related emails:
- ISSUE-116: Last Call Comment: use CURIE prefix other than xmlns for future HTML compatibility (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-04-03)
- meeting record: 2008-04-24 RDF-in-XHTML TF telecon (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2008-04-25)
Related notes:
2008-04-17: Ralph proposes a response in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0115.html
2008-04-30: RESOLVED in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/24-rdfa-minutes.html as "No change in the syntax document needed." and use Ralph's response to the WG. Manu to contact PFWG.
2008-06-02: waited 1 month for comments from PFWG. Closing Issue. Email requesting feedback: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Apr/0156.html
2008-06-12: ACTION: Reject
2008-06-12: CHANGE-TYPE: None
2008-06-12: RESOLUTION: No change in the syntax document needed.
2008-06-12: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: None after 1 month.