[whatwg] Ghosts from the past and the semantic Web
hsivonen at iki.fi
Thu Aug 28 06:06:25 PDT 2008
On Aug 28, 2008, at 15:00, Russell Leggett wrote:
> I actually think that using custom microformat-like conventions with
> classes or tags is really not as robust a solution as what is being
> attempted with RDFa (I honestly did not know much about RDFa before
> this conversation). However, while people keep suggesting classes, I
> have yet to hear anyone suggest the data- attributes. Maybe it was
> said or implied elsewhere, but it seems like a good fit here.
> Instead of requiring the addition of "about" or "property"
> attributes, just use "data-about" or "data-property". It may not be
> ideal, but it fits with the existing spec.
As Anne and Julian have pointed out, that's not a use of data-*
attributes permitted by the spec.
> Beyond that, you have the issue of CURIEs. I can see how they make a
> good fit, but it really is just piggybacking on something else
> convenient. It's an abuse of namespace syntax. That works fine for
> XHTML, but there is no way you are getting namespaces put into HTML,
> so figure out another way. Why not something like "data-curie="dc:http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
That would be an abuse of data-* attributes as well. The data-*
attributes are for scripts included by the page itself. The data-*
attributes aren't for communication with other parties.
" or somesuch would work around the layering problem of that qnames-in-
content have (and CURIEs have, too, when using the namespace mapping
context). It leaves the problem that making URLs shorter (in the
amortized sense) by introducing a supposedly insignificant prefix
confuses people and makes stuff brittle under copying and pasting.
Why not property="http://the.entire.full/uri/here/if/you/really/want/uris/as#identifiers
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the whatwg