RDFA - ugly, unnecessary and offtopic (was Re: [uf-discuss] RDFa)

Bruce D'Arcus bdarcus.lists at gmail.com
Sun May 21 08:21:44 PDT 2006

On 5/19/06, Tantek Çelik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

> * The use of QNames is *NOT* a use of "standard XML namespaces", not by a
> long shot. QNames don't work with CSS Selectors, thus being impractical for
> presentation, thus failing to satisfy the primary use of semantic markup.

I wonder about that too.

At the OpenDocument TC, we discussed another way to sort of split the
difference here, which is to allow an optional uri to be attached to a
style. So, you use styles just as normal, but have the ability to
attach further semantics to the definition.

> * The fact that this draft had to invent a new form of URI (CURIE) should be
> a strong indicator that there is something wrong.  Whenever you find
> yourself inventing new piece of technology for an orthogonal part of the
> stack, it usually means you're doing something wrong in your layer.

Yeah, but I think the problem here is with QNames, not RDFA.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list