W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: htmldata-ISSUE-2 (Use of rdf:XMLLiteral): Should Microdata-RDF generate XMLLiteral values [Microdata to RDF]

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:10:26 +0200
To: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v3umfo0vsr6mfa@kirk>
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:51:56 +0200, Gregg Kellogg  
<gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:42:32 +0200, HTML Data Task Force Issue Tracker
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Should the Microdata to RDF spec parallel RDFa and generate an
>>> rdf:XMLLiteral in this case?
>>
>> I'd say no. XML is not part of the microdata model, and it would be very
>> bad indeed if some toolchains saw this as plain text while others saw it
>> as a DOM fragment.
>
> Regarding different interpretations by tool chains, given that we seem  
> to be going to a parameterized transformation algorithm, this would be  
> only one area where different tools might generate different results.  
> I'd rather see us come up with unambiguous transformation rules that did  
> not rely on the state of different provided to a parser, but that might  
> need to be left to another group that would take on this work at the end  
> of the TF.

I don't understand, what is a "parameterized transformation algorithm" and  
in what other areas do we expect incompatible implementation of microdata?  
Surely we expect that the spec(s) will leave no room for interpretation or  
incompatibility, such that all implementations will do exactly the same  
thing?

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 09:10:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 October 2011 09:10:57 GMT