Greg Stein <email@example.com> writes:
> Urg. -1 on binary property names. As I've said before, property names should
> be URIs. If we don't require URIs, then property names (between two
> different tools) could conflict. And binary names certainly can't be mapped
> into a URI :-)
We can't require URI's. We can always use a certain URI ourselves,
and encourage others to do the same, but in the end, what they do with
properties is their business.
There are lots of ways two different tools could conflict; we can't
protect against all of them and shouldn't try. By allowing arbitrary
names, we make a universe in which tools *can* cooperate if they
choose to. That's the extent of our role. Enforcement will just get
in the way of creative users.
> Can somebody give a rational reason for not using URIs for prop names? Other
> than "that would be neat and the most flexible solution." Any requirements?
> Use cases that need a binary property name?
Sure: property names in character sets that we've never heard of.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006