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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:40:56 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909222240j3d1313a8o81f52210a7ca40d1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 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.

Depends on what you mean by "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".

I don't think you want to exclude HTML implementations that don't use
a DOM for example.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 05:59:17 UTC

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