[whatwg] RDFa Features
Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalmage at gmail.com
Fri Aug 29 06:30:12 PDT 2008
Manu Sporny wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
>>> <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl <mailto:giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl>> wrote:
>>> Ian's question was about what happens when it goes down forever, or
>>> taken over, intercepted, squatted, spoofed or redirected because of a
>>> malicious DNS. I should have known better how to ask it. The
>>> browser cache cannot handle these cases.
>>> Consider the question to be asked by me as well. A host of a popular
>>> format forgets to maintain its registration and gets squatted by a
>>> malicious person. They pick up another url to host their schema on, but
>>> legacy pages are still pointing to the old url and now may have poisoned
>>> semantics. Do we have a recourse?
>> The way we deal with this today is by using a Persistent URL (aka: URL
>> re-direction service) such as purl.org or xmlns.com. We recommend
>> that all authors use such a service for their vocabularies. This is how
>> the Media, Audio, Video and Commerce RDF vocabularies are hosted.
Thanks, Manu. That does help address my concern. However:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:34 AM, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Given the problems with using DNS as your registry noted above and the fact
> that the recommended solution to this problem is to use a small number of
> registries built atop DNS that promise greater longevity than DNS
> registrations can ensure, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a single
> permanent registry that provides (at least for HTML 5) a canonical
> prefix:url mapping. So instead of the use of cc:foo requiring a deceleration
> of cc elsewhere in the document, cc would be declared at, say, cc.rdfa.netand would be a globally unique prefix from the point of view of the author.
> People not wanting to bother registering would just have to use full URLs
> everywhere. This would seem to provide the "follow your nose" principle you
> desire, remove several of the objections to URL-based namespaces, make
> authoring for the common case of well known vocabularies easier, and have
> only mildly different distributedness characteristics to the current
> recommended practice.
I seem to always be a few hours behind in this thread... Rather than
rewrite what Graham said, I'll just say that I echo his suggestion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg