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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:28:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4AB979B1.10104@mit.edu>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On 9/22/09 5:17 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I think I found the code that extracts prefix mappings, and it appears
>> that it uses method 3. So my question is, why is this more correct
>> than any of the other 4 methods i proposed?
> It's not. Modulo the issue with collisions, which I have already
> acknowledged as an edge case we should specify. It doesn't matter. Its
> an implementation choice

How can it possibly be an implementation choice which algorithm to use 
if the options give different answers for prefix mappings?  Either it's 
not an implementation choice, or the specification allows pretty wide 
latitude of "conforming" behavior....  Which is it?

> But I am convinced it would render the same prefix mappings.

The 5 methods Jonas listed give 5 different sets of prefix mappings, at 
first glance.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 01:29:14 GMT

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