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

Re: Request to publish HTML+RDFa (draft 3) as FPWD

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:21:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4AB7D243.5070107@aptest.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Maciej,

My comments below:

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:54 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>>
>> However as far as I can see the spec doesn't actually define how to do
>> prefix mapping in a DOM.
>>
>> Or am I missing something?
>
> You're not missing anything. It's not currently defined. This was one 
> of my points of feedback on the initial draft, which Manu believed he 
> addressed by citing section 5.4 of the XHTML+RDFa spec. But that 
> section does not define anything about pseudo-namespace syntax in 
> HTML. It's not even the section that defines the normative processing 
> requirements for CURIE prefix mappings in XML - that would be 5.5. And 
> the rules in 5.5 do not even correctly describe what should be done in 
> XML, as explained by be here 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0089.html> 
> (scroll down to Manu's mention of "Section 5.5" and my reply).
Obviously, we disagree.  Section 5.4 clearly indicates a normative 
requirement that prefixes are declared using the syntax as defined in 
the Namespaces in XML Recommendation.  If you don't read it that way, do 
you have a proposed change that we could fold into the errata for the 
RDFa Syntax Recommendation?

As to your concern about section 5.5, thanks for bringing that to our 
attention.  I proposed errata text to clarify that wording [1] and I 
expect it to be approved at the next Task Force meeting.

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Sep/0092.html


>
> Needless to say, I am not satisfied that my comment on this has been 
> addressed. It appears to me that the xmlns processing model for HTML 
> remains totally undefined.

There is no "xmlns" processing model in RDFa.  There is a syntax 
specification and rules for extracting prefix mappings from that 
syntax.  Both of those are normative, including by reference for their 
relevant, defining Recommendations. 

>
> I will be reviewing the latest Editor's Draft to see if I'm satisfied 
> with the resolution for other issues I raised.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 19:22:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT