On Sep 29, 2009, at 15:43, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:37 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2009, at 04:47, Mark Birbeck wrote: >> >>> My recollection of the TF's discussion around @version is that it >>> was >>> a way to allow RDFa consumers to decide whether they wanted to >>> parse a >>> page or not. >> >> It seems that you failed to allow it. A quick search through http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ >> for the string "version" suggests that http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ >> doesn't define any processing for @version. Therefore, there's >> nothing in the RDFa in XHTML spec that allows an RDFa processor to >> halt processing depending on @version and fail to extract the triples >> encoded in the document. > > But there's also nothing in the syntax document that requires it to > *start* processing. So an RDFa processor can simply opt to not begin > processing, depending on whatever factors it wants. It seems like a spec bug if main() { exit 0; } is a conforming RDFa processor. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:46:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT