ISSUE-120: Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology

rdfa-prefixes

Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology

State:
POSTPONED
Product:
pre-LC1 HTML+RDFa
Raised by:
Ian Hickson
Opened on:
2010-09-15
Description:
HTML+RDFa uses indirect binding of prefixes, similar in spirit and syntax to Namespaces in XML. Some argue that this is intrinsically too complicated to be a good design for a Web technology:

"The use of prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary strings then combined with
other strings to form a third set of strings is IMHO too complicated for a
technology intended for broad Web deployment (e.g. in text/html)...

The problems with prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary strings then combined
with other strings to form a third set of string are documented and
demonstrable. The examples you gave are either things that don't use such
prefixes (like URIs), or that do and have not had anywhere near the level of
deployed success that HTML has (like XML namespaces).

This bug is not arguing against RDFa. It's arguing against a particular design
decision in RDFa that is not intrinsic to RDFa's design goals."

Others disagree, and think this design is fine, or at least necessary.

The scope of this issue is to determine whether to remove or replace the prefix mechanism of HTML+RDFa, or leave it as-is.

Related bugzilla bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670

(Raised on behalf of Ian Hickson)
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. RE: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-10-23)
  2. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2012-10-22)
  3. RE: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-10-10)
  4. RE: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2012-10-08)
  5. Re: FW: Revised Timeline and New Bug Priority Policy (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2012-02-28)
  6. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-04-13: Decisions, ISSUE-120 Reopen Request, ISSUE-129 Wording (from mjs@apple.com on 2011-04-13)
  7. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-13)
  8. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-04-13)
  9. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2011-04-13)
  10. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-13)
  11. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-04-13)
  12. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-13)
  13. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2011-04-13)
  14. Re: Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-12)
  15. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-11)
  16. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from kurt.cagle@gmail.com on 2011-04-11)
  17. Request to reopen ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (was: Working Group Decision) (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-09)
  18. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from davidc@nag.co.uk on 2011-04-08)
  19. Re: prefixes vs full URIs, Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-08)
  20. prefixes vs full URIs, Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2011-04-08)
  21. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-08)
  22. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2011-04-08)
  23. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-08)
  24. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jgraham@opera.com on 2011-04-08)
  25. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-08)
  26. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2011-04-08)
  27. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jgraham@opera.com on 2011-04-08)
  28. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from kurt.cagle@gmail.com on 2011-04-07)
  29. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com on 2011-04-07)
  30. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from kurt.cagle@gmail.com on 2011-04-07)
  31. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-07)
  32. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2011-04-07)
  33. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-07)
  34. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jgraham@opera.com on 2011-04-07)
  35. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jgraham@opera.com on 2011-04-07)
  36. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-04-06)
  37. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jgraham@opera.com on 2011-04-06)
  38. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-31: Issues, Publications, Surveys, Decisions, Task Force Reports (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-30)
  39. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-29)
  40. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2011-03-29)
  41. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2011-03-29)
  42. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-29)
  43. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2011-03-29)
  44. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from jgraham@opera.com on 2011-03-29)
  45. Working Group Decision on ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-29)
  46. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-24: Issues, surveys, decisions (from mjs@apple.com on 2011-03-23)
  47. RE: {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-17: Issues, surveys, decisions and task force reports (from adrianba@microsoft.com on 2011-03-17)
  48. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-17: Issues, surveys, decisions and task force reports (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2011-03-16)
  49. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-17: Issues, surveys, decisions and task force reports (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-03-15)
  50. Re: ISSUE-120: rdfa-prefixes - Straw Poll for Objections (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-11)
  51. Re: ISSUE-120: rdfa-prefixes - Straw Poll for Objections (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2011-03-11)
  52. ISSUE-120: rdfa-prefixes - Straw Poll for Objections (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-03-11)
  53. {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-10: Action items, issues, surveys and decisions (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-03-11)
  54. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-10: Action items, issues, surveys and decisions (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-03-08)
  55. {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-03: Issues, Decisions, Task Force Reports, and Other Business (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-03-04)
  56. Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from danny.ayers@gmail.com on 2011-03-04)
  57. Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-03)
  58. RE: {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-03: Issues, Decisions, Task Force Reports, and Other Business (from adrianba@microsoft.com on 2011-03-03)
  59. Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from danny.ayers@gmail.com on 2011-03-03)
  60. Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-02)
  61. Re: ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from danny.ayers@gmail.com on 2011-03-02)
  62. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-03-03: Issues, Decisions, Task Force Reports, and Other Business (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-03-02)
  63. {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-02-24: Action items and Issues (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-02-24)
  64. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-02-24: Action items and Issues (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-02-23)
  65. Re: HTML5 ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes : Proposal to use RDFa according to spec (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2011-02-08)
  66. Re: [Moderator Action] Re: HTML5 ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes : Proposal to use RDFa according to spec (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-02-04)
  67. {minutes} HTML WG telecon 2011-02-03: Issues, surveys (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-02-03)
  68. ISSUE-120 rdfa-prefixes - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2011-02-03)
  69. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2011-02-03: Issues, surveys (from mjs@apple.com on 2011-02-02)
  70. {minutes} HTML WG Telecon 2010-01-27: status of actions, new issues, closing items, new calls, charter status (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-01-27)
  71. Re: {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-01-27: status of actions, new issues, closing items, new calls, charter status (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2011-01-26)
  72. {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-01-27: status of actions, new issues, closing items, new calls, charter status (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2011-01-26)
  73. Re: Microsoft, WebDAV, and XML namespaces, was: ISSUE-120 CP (from annevk@opera.com on 2011-01-21)
  74. Microsoft, WebDAV, and XML namespaces, was: ISSUE-120 CP (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2011-01-21)
  75. Re: ISSUE-120 (rdfa-prefixes): Chairs Solicit Proposals (from tai@g5n.co.uk on 2011-01-21)
  76. RE: {minutes} HTML WG Telecon 2010-01-20: status of actions, calls; task force reports (from adrianba@microsoft.com on 2011-01-20)
  77. ISSUE-120 CP (from ian@hixie.ch on 2011-01-19)
  78. {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-01-20: status of actions, calls; task force reports (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2011-01-18)
  79. {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-12-16: status of actions, calls, new decisions, task force reports (from mjs@apple.com on 2011-01-12)
  80. {minutes} HTML WG Telecon 2010-12-09: status of actions, calls, new decisions (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-12-16)
  81. Re: {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-12-09: status of actions, calls, new decisions (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-12-09)
  82. ISSUE-120 (rdfa-prefixes): Chairs Solicit Proposals (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-12-08)
  83. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-11-11)
  84. {minutes} HTML WG F2F minutes, Lyon, France, Nov 4-5 Part 1 (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-11-09)
  85. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-09-24)
  86. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com on 2010-09-24)
  87. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-09-24)
  88. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-09-24)
  89. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-09-24)
  90. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-09-23)
  91. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from ian@hixie.ch on 2010-09-23)
  92. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from ian@hixie.ch on 2010-09-23)
  93. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-22)
  94. Re: ISSUE-120 (rdfa-prefixes): Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology [HTML+RDFa] (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-22)
  95. {agenda} HTML WG Telecon 2010-09-09 status of calls, heartbeat, last call; task force reports; bugzilla notifications, discussion guidelines (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-09-15)
  96. [Bug 7670] Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from bugzilla@jessica.w3.org on 2010-09-15)
  97. ISSUE-120 (rdfa-prefixes): Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology [HTML+RDFa] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-09-15)

Related notes:

WG Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0689.html

Sam Ruby, 29 Mar 2011, 15:01:40

POSTPONED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0486.html

Sam Ruby, 28 Feb 2012, 22:45:43

Changelog:

Created issue 'Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology' nickname rdfa-prefixes owned by Ian Hickson on product HTML+RDFa, description 'HTML+RDFa uses indirect binding of prefixes, similar in spirit and syntax to Namespaces in XML. Some argue that this is intrinsically too complicated to be a good design for a Web technology:

"The use of prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary strings then combined with
other strings to form a third set of strings is IMHO too complicated for a
technology intended for broad Web deployment (e.g. in text/html)...

The problems with prefixes that can be bound to arbitrary strings then combined
with other strings to form a third set of string are documented and
demonstrable. The examples you gave are either things that don't use such
prefixes (like URIs), or that do and have not had anywhere near the level of
deployed success that HTML has (like XML namespaces).

This bug is not arguing against RDFa. It's arguing against a particular design
decision in RDFa that is not intrinsic to RDFa's design goals."

Others disagree, and think this design is fine, or at least necessary.

The scope of this issue is to determine whether to remove or replace the prefix mechanism of HTML+RDFa, or leave it as-is.

Related bugzilla bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670

(Raised on behalf of Ian Hickson)' non-public

Maciej Stachowiak, 15 Sep 2010, 09:37:13

Status changed to 'open'

Sam Ruby, 19 Jan 2011, 21:56:22

Product changed to pre-LC1 HTML+RDFa

Sam Ruby, 29 Jan 2011, 18:25:01

Status changed to 'closed'

Sam Ruby, 29 Mar 2011, 15:01:40

Status changed to 'postponed'

Sam Ruby, 28 Feb 2012, 22:45:43


Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chairs, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $