W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: FPWD Review Request: HTML+RDFa

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:51:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4AA67D72.4030403@aptest.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2009, at 23:08, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>
>> The processing model in the current RDFa Syntax Recommendation is 
>> sufficiently precise for anyone to understand what must be done in 
>> the face of both conforming and non-conforming input.
>
> I thought Philip showed this isn't the case.
I don't think he has, no.  I am writing a detailed message about that.
>
>> The edge conditions people keep bringing up (what happens if 
>> xmlns:="" is defined, etc) are all degenerate cases of the general 
>> case of prefix declaration that does not match the syntax 
>> definition.  If it doesn't match the syntax definition, it is 
>> illegal.  If it is illegal, it is ignored.  What more does one need 
>> in a normative spec?
>
> You need to say explicitly what is ignored.
Again, I disagree.  Or rather, I think we do.  The rules for CURIE and 
URI processing in section 5.4 indicate that anything that is not a legal 
CURIE (in the context of RDFa) or URI are ignored.  URI is tightly 
defined by the appropriate RFC.  Legal CURIE syntax is tightly defined 
in the RDFa Syntax specification.  I can't imagine what more one might say.



-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 15:52:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC