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

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

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:30:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4AB9B28C.7020002@digitalbazaar.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
I think the frustration level in this thread is rising to the point that
we're not going to be able to make good progress if it continues much
longer, so let me propose a set of solutions and then have Jonas, Henri
and Maciej weigh in on whether or not they think that the set of
solutions will address their issues:

 * Normatively define how a DOM-based implementation should work for
   those parts that people feel are not clear. This would only clarify
   what DOM-based implementations should do and would not require
   implementations to use a DOM to be viewed as a conformant RDFa
   processor.
 * Normatively define how a DOM-based implementation should create
   prefix mappings. This would only clarify what DOM-based
   implementations should do and would not require implementations to
   use a DOM to be viewed as a conformant RDFa processor.
 * Add test cases for every single one of Philip Taylors xmlns: tests
   as well as any other tests that he has in his test suite where
   implementations differ in the triples that they produce. Philip,
   can you help me produce these tests?
 * If any of Philip Taylor's tests cannot be traced back to language in
   the HTML+RDFa, XHTML+RDFa spec, or other normative spec in an
   unambiguous way, then we must add language /somewhere/ to clarify
   why a test case operates in a certain manner.

To execute on these goals, we can do the following:

1. Discuss what language should be created or altered in an upcoming
   RDFa Task Force telecon.
2. Edit the HTML+RDFa specification to add the normative language for
   DOM-based implementations.
3. Get all of Philip's tests migrated into the RDFa Test Suite.
4. Map each of Philip's tests to normative language in a specification,
   and if there is no normative language, create normative language.

Jonas, Henri, Maciej - does this seem like a good way forward? Is there
any other issue that was raised that should have a bullet item? If so,
please summarize the issue in 1-2 sentences - don't elaborate on it if
it was already covered in this discussion. I'm speaking with Henri
tomorrow morning at 9am, and will try to get some further understanding
of his non-DOM (XOM) issues.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Pirate Bay and Building an Equitable Culture
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/08/30/equitable-culture/
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 05:31:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC